I have finished my reading of the new paper by Allen Lowrie and John G. Conran (A revision of the Drosera omissa/D. nitidula complex (Droseraceae) from south-west Western Australia, 2007, Taxon 56: 533-544).
The following items of interest are included.
1)First, it is revealed that dear old Drosera ericksoniae is synonymous with the older name, Drosera omissa, and so the latter name should be used instead.
Next, the authors revisit a debate on how to handle pygmy Drosera, especially those that are infraspecific Drosera nitidula taxa. Lowrie and his colleagues have preferred to treat many pygmies at the subspecies level. However, since many of these subspecies have overlapping ranges, Jan Schlauer reassigned them to the variety level. In this new paper, Lowrie and Conran argue that the differences among the D. nitidula subspecies (or varieties) are large enough to merit species rank. Therefore, they propose the following.
2)Drosera nitidulasubsp./var. allantostigmais elevated to Drosera allantostigma.
3)Drosera nitidula subsp./var. leucostigma is elevated to Drosera leucostigma.
4)The entity referred to as Drosera nitidula subsp. omissa is elevated to species status. Since the name Drosera omissa has already been taken (see result #1, above), the new species name D. patens is established for it.
Thanks to Lee Braithwaite for clarifying to me some of the ramifications of this paper.
This is interesting and will cause all sorts of confusion within the amateur CP grower community. It is not too challenging to change D. nitidula subsp. allantostigma to D. allantostigma or D. nitidula subsp. leucostigma to D. leucostigma.
However, D. ericksoniae becoming D. omissa will be interesting -- particularly since D. nitidula subsp. omissa will not become D. omissa, but will now be D. patens instead.
Let there be full employment for the taxonomists!!
Yes, my first (very casual) reading of the paper was made with the assumption that D. nitidula subsp. omissa was the entity being raised to the D. omissa name, which of course was wrong. Lee B had to straighten me out on that one.
I think you need to refer back to the species descriptions and Lowrie's works to answer this. Not many of these references are available online or may have to be purchased (journal reprints).
A good place to start is the CP Plant database which references where the species descriptions were first published. These may not be available in English. The descriptions should be in Latin as well as the language of the publication.