www.rhs.org.uk/Plants/RHS-Publications/Journals/The-Plantsman/2011-Issues/September/Petrocosmea
Petrocosmea cryptica '#3' (formerly known as P. rosettifolia #3) shown above. There are several variants or clones of this species in cultivation. The one above has attractive leaf markings and large, pure white flowers with yellow throats. Mr. Shaw finally did some of the much-needed taxonomic work on one of the more popular species in cultivation now for around ten years. In his article, Mr. Shaw mentions the fact that this species has been improperly labeled P. rosettifolia, and has also been distributed under various other names such as 'G25KC00' which I've discussed here in previous posts. In my collection, I've accumulated at least nine plants which I believe are simply different clones, likely from different collections, of this species. DNA analysis which we did with Niagara University, has shown that these various clones are all very closely related genetically, so close, in fact, that we believe they are all the same species. It is common from a species to contain individuals with quite different characteristics.
Pictured above is a plant in my collection which I call P. cryptica '#5 '(formerly labeled P. rosettifolia #5). This form has less distinct yellow veining in the leaves and lavendar flowers.
Pictured above is P. cryptica '#4' (formerly labeled P. rosettifolia '#4'). This form has white flowers and a distinct and vibrant yellow veining to the leaves. The flower form on this clone, to me, is less attractive than that of #3, but it tends to flower more heavily, and later than '#3'. 
The photo above shows the variability in the foliage of P. cryptica clones in cultivation. This photo shows my plants of P. cryptica '#4' at the top and P. cryptica '#1' at the bottom. Two forms #1 and #2 both have leaves that are nearly totally green and more rounded in shape with smooth margins. Other clones show the distinct yellow veining and toothed leaf margins. Clones #1 and #2 also grow much more compact and have flowers in light lavendar to pink shades. DNA analysis, though, does show them to be the same species as the showier forms. Mr. Shaw's article has lots of good information in it. And, it mentions this blog and three of my hybrids using P. cryptica - P. 'Rosemary Platz', P. 'Keystone's Bantam', and P. 'Keystone's Harvest Moon'. The first two are registered with the Gesneriad Society and show P. rosettifolia as the parent, since that was the name applied to the species at the time.
In the future, I hope to see more taxonomic work done on the many Pet species still being grown and distributed under names that are clearly incorrectly applied. P. minor and it's various forms being one in this group. P. sericea and sp.' HT-2' are also suspect in my opinion.
So, the question I am getting is "Should I change the labels on my plants?". I have changed my labels on the plants which I am reasonably certain fall under this newly published description. If I am in doubt, however, I say what I always say...keep the plant labeled as you acquired it, along with a notation of where and when you acquired it. One day, perhaps we will have the mess with Pet names sorted out. For the time being, though, enjoy growing the plants as they are.
