Vol. 12, #3
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!”
You know about half the citizens of
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,
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:
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.
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 acuta “