Aaron, Thank you for correcting the ID on this plant. I will make the necessary changes on the wiki. Regards to your comment about inconclusive genetics in this group, I will have to disagree. According to Manning et al. (2004) *A revised generic synopsis of Hyacinthaceae in sub-Saharan Africa, based on molecular evidence, including new combinations and the new tribe Pseudoprospereae*, the evidence for making this group a single genus is very well supported. In the paper, *Ledebouria*, *Drimiopsis*, and *Resnova* falls into a single monophyletic clade, supported by 99% bootstrap statistics. It is uncommon to find a well supported clade like this and when one does find one, it is clear that the organisms all fit together. If more evidence arises in the future for Sub-Saharan Hyacinthaceae that would clarify more ambiguous groups, this is one that will most likely remain unchanged. It has been 6 years since Manning made the revision to include *Resnova* and *Drimiopsis*in *Ledebouria*. So it's time for us to move on and accept these similar looking plant as a single, unified *Ledebouria*. Nhu Berkeley, CA On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:58 AM, aaron floden <aaron_floden@yahoo.com> wrote: > The picture on PBS is not D. maculata it is D. maxima. Drimiopsis maxima > lacks the prominent petioles of Drimiopsis maculata is seen here. > > Lebatha's revision of Drimiopsis kept it separate from Ledebouria and > Resnova, and Venter also sees them as distinct, but closely related genera. > There are distinct morphologies between them and genetics are still > inconclusive. > > Aaron > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/xerantheum/