Do we have a wrong labeled mieheana?

I received this week my Afm journal together with some descriptions of the loose leaf collection.
The description of M. mieheana (Tiegel) took my attention. The article says that the pictures in Pilbeam's and Reppenhagen's book are not mieheana, but a form of elongata. Further the autor says that in our collections most of the plants are not mieheana but this form of elongata. The real mieheana was rediscovered in 1999 by Lina and Josef Schmid.
After 70 years of the discovery of mieheana, the Schmid's braught 2 seedberrys with, who should be the base of increase.

I saw that in the last journal of 2007 the article about M. mieheana, which seemed to suggest that it wasn't the species described by Tiegel, but a form of densispina, changed as a result of lighting conditions where it grew to the form of plant as we know it today.
I've always thought it was a natural hybrid between elongata and densispina, so it will be interesting to see the plant that the Schmid's have discovered. Is the matter only in the loose leaf collection? or in the journal (which I shall now await eagerly!).

Hello Chris,
No, it was just mentioned in the loose leaf collection. If you wish I try to make a copy and send it to you, but it's only in German. There are a few interesting pictures of the real mieheana in it.

If it is possible to scan or photograph it, that would be excellent. If not, then I'll wait a few weeks!
Isn't it interesting how modern discoveries are putting into doubt some of the older publications.