Sacha wrote:

In horticultural terms, this is really very exciting news. As you know, Ray
was sure it was P John Innes because the very old man who gave it to him had
not only been growing it at the temperate house in Kew, so had Ray's and his
mutual friend *and* said old man had worked at the JI centre when this one
was named.

Yes it is exciting, because although I didn't believe it was totally
'lost', it was unlikely to get into circulation unless it fell into
the right hands, which it has done. I never questioned the identity
because your plant tallied with the only one I've seen growing and it
looked right. Ray's subsequent explanation citing the source allowed
a perfect fit.

......................But of
course, those who grow a few as a hobby thought they knew better! One
customer has insisted in naming it as P. belottii so I will now email him to
confirm that he is incorrect.

The problem seems to be that you get a few hobbyists who pore over
photographs in books (worse still - on the net), together with
descriptions of plants they've never seen. Of course the JI centre
are in the same position because they don't have any of the original
plant. However, they are more likely to have better quality pics and
be more scientifically capable of accepting or rejecting any
variations between your plant and that recorded as JI. It appears
that they are happy for it to be nailed and so 45 years after its
introduction, P. 'John Innes' has resurfaced and is coming back into
general circulation.