Heuchera micans

[Palustris]

I am seeking information on a plant which is sometimes shown as Heuchera micans. Anyone grow this?
TIA

[Maggi Young]

Here's the plant, as pictured at the East Cheshire AGS SHOW 5th May 2007 AT Macclesfield, by Cliff Booker from this post
http://www.srgc.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=482.msg11898#msg11898

[Maggi Young]

Seems this is a question that is taxing the National Collection Holder, too!
http://www.growsonyou.com/question/show/70360


 Also, you'll see that Palustris gets about!!

[Afloden]

I would start here; http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=115382.

 I would suggest the possibilities of abramsii, elegans, hirsutissima, parishii, and/or, rubescens.

 Also, the name, micans, may have been someones shorthand for micrantha, but the plant does not look right for that species.

 But, without keying it in the FNA treatment a guess based on pictures is not good.

 Aaron

[TheOnionMan]

Appears that this is yet another plant species that exists in Horticulture only, as there is no evidence of a validly published name H. "micans", not found in IPNI.ORG, The Plant List, Flora of North America (where the genus Heuchera resides), nor Tropicos.  Aaron, I thought of the mossibly name corruption of micrantha, but it does not match that species.  

There is a name Saxifraga micans, but that is a kabschia, and per The Plant List, the name is unresolved, but it is not related to the subject plant.

Aaron, I think I can narrow the list of suggested species as to its actual identity, my first guess is H. abramsii, second guess is H. rubescens.
http://www.laporteavenuenursery.com/html/heuchera_abramsii.html

[Palustris]

My picture of the offending plant does not show who the owner was, so I am unable to contact him/her directly. I was hoping some kind person would offer me a piece.

[Lesley Cox]

Cliff's plant (or the plant photographed by Cliff) is very fine whatever its true identity.

[David Nicholson]

Didn't we have an article in IRG on species Heuchera, maybe the author could help?

[Maggi Young]

We did indeed, David, from Grahame Ware who has written a book on these plants. .... I've passed this query on to him   

[TheOnionMan]

edit by maggi: ....having followed the link in a previous post, Mark writes:


A response at the end worries me "The Heuchera ?micans was in existence in 2009 as I have a picture of it at an AGS show from that year"

The scenario seems to be, if a plant is shown once (even with a dubious name), that act in of itself makes it real and legitimate, without considering the possibility the plant name may be scrambled, invented, unpublished, or otherwise invalid.  Then it gets photographed, reposted, the plant propagated and distributed, blogged about, posted and reposted, etc etc etc, as we all know, "if its on the internet it must be legitimate", and another urban legend is born and becomes embedded in horticulture.

Need to start a thread on fictitiously named plant species; has anyone heard of Androsace victoriae? It's another one going around.

[Palustris]

I am utterly disgusted that this site allows such an unpleasant and down right rude posting to remain. To criticise someone on another site for their use of language is as far as I am concerned beyond the pale.



edit by maggi:
The post that upset Eric has been removed.

[PeterT]

I m not so sure that it is so wrong of the "site" which is a "broad church" and (I believe) better for being so. What I do think is wonderfull is the amount of restraint and self regulation which takes place between members. If some thing is wrong and is challenged surely that is a good thing?   
I remember a posting of Allium "clevlandii/ cleavelandii" ( Aparently an un published name.) There was never any help forthcoming on its correct identification though, but the suppliers of this lovely plant were slated. 

[Maggi Young]

Peter, I think Eric/Palustris is upset by the criticism of the blogger's writing style, not the use of the plant name.

[Maggi Young]

I've heard from Grahame Ware, who we thought might be able to cast some light on the use of the name H. micans .....

Maggi: Not sure where this name started but I looked through my papers and in the second box found that the name is attributable to H. rubescens which is the most variable species in the Heux cosmos. Micans is an invalid name as you stated. There are a quite few in the Nat'l Collection.

Thus it seems that the National Collection Holder of historical note (Ramsdale) and/or the RHS has to be responsible for the continued use of this invalid name.
So this plant is what taxonomists would call either a nomina ambigua, a nomina confusa or just plain nomen illegitumum.

Still it was a lovely, floriferous plant on the stand, was it not?  (referring to the picture of a show plant which I sent him)

I'll keep poking through the info and let you know if I find anything else.

Regards,

Grahame


I wish I could tell you where the use of this name started. I'll keep looking thru the boxes!

[Palustris]

If the criticism has been levelled at me then fair enough, my shoulders are broad (too broad some would say), but it is the fact that it was made of someone who is not a member of the SRGC nor a poster to this board and thus unable to defend herself which really made me angry.
I apologise if my reaction has upset anyone and would like to say  thank-you to those posters who tried to help with suggestions of possible identity, that kind of help is what I have come to expect from the majority of people on this site.
If anyone out there is into Heucheras, Heucherellas and Tiarellas then I can thoroughly recommend the nursery. The plants are beautifully grown and reasonably priced and correctly named.