Vol. 12, #3

June 1, 2012


Hoya latifolia, Photo by Michael Miyashiro






Question:     Say, Chris, did you make a typo in the last issue or have I been asleep (like Rip Van Winkle) for about 100 years?  See your picture of IML-1508 -- signed  Your cousin- guess which one!”


Answer:   Coward!  You know about half the citizens of Georgia and Florida are related to me so you hide behind the word, cousin.  Oh well, you are correct.  I goofed.  The year 3012 found there is obviously  a “typo.”  I could ask my friend, Rebecca, who puts these things on line for me, to correct that but I think she does enough for me, considering that she isn’t paid to do it and she has a full time job. Besides that hoyas are not a passionate interest of hers.


Question:  Mr. Green says that the hoya you call Hoya latifolia cannot be that species because it does not have multiple peduncles.  What say you? --- more people than I can count.


Answer:  It is possible that I am wrong about the identity of the one I call Hoya latifolia, but I don’t think I am.  I do know, however, that Mr. Green is W-R-O-N-G in thinking that Hoya latifolia has to have multiple peduncles and he is wrong in thinking that the hoya I believe is Hoya latifolia doesn’t have multiple peduncles.  The plants he sells as Hoya latifolia, Hoya latifolia concolor,  and Hoya latifolia var. variegata, ARE NOT Hoya latifolia. Mr. Green needs to take a course in nomenclature and taxonomy and get himself a copy of the “Code.”  He needs to study all of those and learn what’s what.  I’ve pointed the facts about Hoya latifolia out to him before but he is a slow learner.  He has confused Hoya macrophylla Blume with Hoya macrophylla Wight.  They are two entirely different species.


Blume published Hoya macrophylla in 1826.  His species was beautifully illustrated and should be easily recognized.  It has lots of peduncles, arranged close together, all at a single node. Others with similar leaves and similar flowers are often confused with it but they are totally different from Hoya latifolia.


In 1834, Robert Wight, apparently unaware of Blume’s 1826 publication of a hoya named Hoya macrophylla, published a hoya, which he named Hoya macrophylla.  Wight’s hoya was never described as having multiple peduncles.  If it did, it was obviously a sometimes thing as with my plant. You’ll find Robert Wight’s publication in Contributions to the Botany of India (1834) on page 38.


Then, in 1837, George Don happened upon Wight’s publication and realized that Wight’s name was untenable, due to Blume’s earlier publication of the name.  He also recognized Wight’s species as being a different species than Blume’s so he republished Wight’s species, giving it the name Hoya latifolia.  I was able to see Wight’s type specimen.  It has drawings of the flower parts and a complete flower mounted on it.  The flowers were obviously damaged (as noted by Wight) so that the corona lobes in his sketches stood straight up but those on the one complete corona mounted there are mostly rotate and almost flat on top.  That flower is nearly three times larger than any flower on Mr. Green’s plant.

 I will try to sort out all the data furnished to me by Douglas Kent and David Liddle on the true Hoya macrophylla  and its  close kin, Hoyas clandestina, polystachya, and tjadasmalangensis.  You can be sure of one thing.  Mr. Green’s determination (using what appears to be a favorite phrase of his), in this case (as in many others), is “WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!”



Hoya latifolia – Photograph by Christine M. Burton

           Mr. Green says this can’t be Hoya latifolia because it doesn’t have multiple peduncles.  I wonder what he calls the two peduncles at the single node shown in my picture.  I admit that there are no multiple peduncles at every node on my plant but There is nothing in Wight’s or George Don’s publication that says one should expect multiple peduncles.


           All of the above was pointed out to readers (including Mr. Green), by me, in The Hoyan, back in the 1980s.


           The following is correspondence from David Liddle, sent to me to use as I see fit:


Burton’s Comments:  The above photocopies are of an article sent to me by David Liddle.  I just want to stress the facts stated by David Liddle that Mr. Green continues to overlook.  1).  Nowhere in Wight’s nor George Don’s publications did either of them say that Hoya latifolia  has multiple peduncles.  Both said that the peduncles were “many flowered,  not that the plant was “many peduncled.”   Note also that Mr. Liddle placed Mr. Green’s Hoya loyceandrewsiana into synonymy with Hoya latifolia.



Hoya latifolia G. Don (syn. Hoya loyceandrewsiana T. Green

Photo by David J. Liddle



QUESTION:  Do you know the correct name of Hoya sp. Golden Eye?  -- Too many people to name here.

ANSWER:   I also answer for the benefit of many who have shared their hoya accessions lists with me.  I’ve found this listed on four of those lists.  The answer is, “There is no Hoya sp. Golden Eye.  It is Hoya cv. Golden Eye!  All you need to know about it follows:


           This is getting too long but I just had to add the above because I’m getting sick and tired of being told (not asked, TOLD, that Hoya cv. Golden Eye is an unidentified species, not a cultivar.  “Friends, Romans and Countrymen, lend me your ears.”   Cv. Golden Eye is a Michael Miyashiro cross.  It is Hoya vitellinoides X Hoya incrassata.  MM made a herbarium specimen of it and deposited at Cornell, as prescribed in The Code for Cultivated Plants and he published it in The Hoyan.   You’ll find that in vol. 17, #3, beginning on page 39.

           MM held a  Name the cultivar contest” with a nice big cutting of it going to the winner.  It was reported in The Hoyan vol. 17, #4, page 66 that the winning name was Golden Eye and the winner who got the cutting was Eva-Karin Wiberg.  The golden eye was inspired, I believe, by the conspicuous yellow pollinia that can be seen in the center of the flower but the name also came from a popular movie series of the early 1990s.  Seems to me it was a series of spy movies—James Bond????  The yellow of the “eye” is a lot more conspicuous than it appears in the picture.

           I hate to appear crude and rude but I hope those ignoramuses among us will shut their big fat “KnowNothingMouths about this cultivar – and about anything else, unless they can (and do) cite volume, issue and page number where proof of their claims can be found.



Coming next, if I can get my act together:  “The Hoya Garbage Pail.”   Translated:  That means a study, done mostly by the late Hon., Douglas H. Kent (with a little teeny bit of my help), of what people call any hoyas whose identities confuse them.  Translated further, that means, “Everything you see labeled Hoya acutaAIN’T”!!!!!!  AND, everything you see labeled Hoya verticillata AIN’T”!!!!