PS-The Hoyan
Vol. 6, #4
Started October, 2007 – Finished February, 2008
What’s New??
OR
THE BLINDEST LEADING THE BLIND
To tell the truth, not much is new –
just the same old same old. As noted in
previous issues, this is supposed to be a column that critiques other hoya
publications. I am at least a year
behind in my promise to do that. It’s
hard to keep abreast of these publications when there are people bound and
determined to obtain immortality by publishing every known species at least
twice and have such overactive imaginations that they can see and describe flower parts in pictures that look to me like
blobs of debris -- and some of that
debris doesn’t even look like plant debris!!!
Actually, I have seen clearer pictures of hoya flower parts outlined in
the clouds above my head while day
dreaming in my hammock on a warm summer afternoon (back when I had time to day dream in my
hammock) --- I’ve also seen Moses and the Red Sea parting in those clouds. Sometimes I have wondered if the pictures
Kloppenburg publishes and labels as hoya species might have originated in those
same clouds! If one has a vivid
imagination one can see all kinds of picture up there in the sky. One can see
visions in smoke rings too. I know
because I used to imagine all sorts of things (mostly bugs and monsters)
watching the smoke billowing from
grandpa Hudson’s and Uncle Hamp’s
corncob pipes as I sat at their feet near their rockers on lazy Sunday
afternoons.
One particular new name published by Kloppenburg in Fraterna
20(4): 9 (2007) really has me wondering about the imagination of this man. He named it Hoya heuschkeliana subsp.
cajonoae Kloppenb. & Siar. Here are some of the things that make me
wonder:
1). He said, “It has a campanulate corolla, like Hoya
blashernaezii Kloppenb. but differs in being
smaller. Did you ever see a Hoya heuschkeliana flower that
didn’t have an urceolate corolla? I
haven’t.
Here is the picture on page 9 which he labeled as,
“Corolla outside”:
Something is definitely
wrong here as all hoya corollas are shaped like 5-pointed stars. This looks more like an insect chewed
Zygocactus flower or a wadded up and twisted piece of a cotton ball after being
used to clean the lipstick off ones collar before ones wife spots it!. One
thing is 100% certain. That is not a
corolla that at all resembles a Hoya blashernaezii corolla or a Hoya
heuschkeliana corolla.
Hoya blashernaezii corollas. Hoya heuschkeliana corollas.
Do you think Kloppenburg’s corolla looks like either
of these? If you do, then one of us has
a serious eye problem that needs immediate medical diagnosis. I don’t think it’s me as I’ve been able to
see quite well since getting my implants!
But what can you expect from a fellow who calls the
following a “Hoya Crown & Corolla”?”
See Kloppenburg’s book, Hoya Section Acanthostemma,
page 73. As I’ve said before, it looks
like a topographical map of some third world island! --- Or one of those Rorschach inkblots that shrinks ask their patients to interpret in order to get
inside their minds. Okay, you shrinks
out there, what does it mean when someone calls that a “flower” (a crown and a corolla almost equals
a flower – the showy part anyway)? Turn it on its side and it looks sort of
like a 4 legged animal (at rest – with heads at both ends, like the fictitious
“Alicroc”) with its front legs extended outward and upward and the other two
tucked underneath. What it doesn’t look
like to me (and, I believe, anyone with good eyesight and half a brain) is a
hoya flower!
When describing flowers on dried specimens, I think it
presumptuous to assume a corolla is campanulate unless the collector (who saw
the flowers in the living state) wrote on that specimen that the flowers were
campanulate. Kloppenburg, obviously did not see this
species in the living state. Hoya flowers go through several stages as they
mature. The buds of all, except
urceolate flowers, open and appear for a short time as campanulate; then as
rotate and finally, at maturity, campanulate, reflexed, or revolute (according
to the nature of the species). Then they
reverse the order so that by the time they are about ready to drop off the
peduncle, they are again campanulate or even almost closed, like buds. Hoya
carnosa flowers, for example, though rotate at maturity, could
appear campanulate on a dried specimen, if the specimen had been collected and
mounted after they had passed maturity and had reached their mid-stage of
closing up.
2). He said, “The corona is like Hoya loheri Kloppenb. but differs in the bi-lobes being obtuse.” I have never seen
an Acanthostemma flower with corona bi-lobes that were anything but obtuse and
that includes the hoya Mr. K. calls Hoya
loheri. I am confident that he
hasn’t either. In a profile picture the lobes of this species look somewhat
acute but they
don’t look like “bi-lobes” from that angle either. Looking at a corona lobe “straight-on” one
can see that they are, though narrower at the tips, rounded – in other words,
obtuse.
It
seems to me that if this plant were a subspecies of Hoya heuschkeliana that
its corona would look like
a Hoya Heuschkeliana
corona, not a Hoya loheri corona. So, he
shows us a picture that he says is a corona
lobe of
this new species (in profile) and tells us that it looks like a Hoya
loheri corona lobe:
DK’s corona profile on page 10 of Fraterna
20(4).
Left:
Hoya
loheri (or what DK claims is Hoya
loheri) showing lobes in profile.
Right: Hoya heuschkeliana corona
profile. If you see any resemblances
there, I can only speculate on what you’re smoking, if you are smoking!
3). And how about this?:
Can anyone tell me just what use this picture is to
anyone? It is labeled as being a
pedicel. I am 100% sure that this
picture will never be one iota’s worth of good in helping anyone identify this
hoya species (nor will any of his other pictures). It is only wasted space and wasted money
publishing it. Aren’t there any IHA members complaining about all the waste they are
paying for in these bulletins?
By the way, in his book, World of Hoyas, Mr.
Kloppenburg stated on page 62, 2nd paragraph that Hoya
blashernaezii “ is one of the Section Acanthostemma species,
with the bilobed outer coronal lobes.” That, as you can plainly see is pure,
unadulterated fiction --- just another of several thousand inaccuracies I have
found in Kloppenburg’s writing and illustrations
………………………….
Hoya ramosii Kloppenb.
et Siar
Fraterna 20(4)
contains another very puzzling publication.
It is Hoya ramosii. This, as
all Kloppenburg publications, is copiously illustrated with pictures that only
God could identify as being what they are labeled. His written description of this (and most) is
beyond my understanding and, unless all my schools’ testing was flawed, I have
above average I. Q.
One term that he doesn’t appear to know the meaning of
is “Anther Wings.” In this instance (and
in many others I could name) he has declared that the corona has double anther
wings and illustrated these double anther wings in three pictures that showed
the corona, with text pointing out those “double anther wings.” I assume that he was referring to the tissue
on each side of a corona lobe, as that is what all other hoya authors call
“anther wings.” However, there is a
group of six pictures on page 18 that show bits and pieces of a
pollinarium. The text says, “Pollinium
from a flower Mostly (sic) only the retinacula (sic) and anther wing in one
frame. This was the best I could do.” * Friends, there is no anther wing in
any of those pictures because pollinaria don’t have anther wings. Pollinaria are found in an area of the flower
just above the anther wings and they are partially (sometimes entirely) covered
by the anther appendages (other parts Kloppenburg frequently calls anther wings).
* The best that he can do, isn’t good enough!
If you paid for it, you were cheated.
COMPLAIN! – LOUDLY!!!!
I will not waste time reprinting the
11 pictures that illustrated this publication (or I should say that failed to
illustrate anything at all due to such poor quality) but I’d like to show you
three pictures that were taken by Mr. Kloppenburg and sent to me via snail mail
in 1990. All three of these pictures
were labeled on their backs as being Ramos #75500 (which he cited as the
holotype of this new species – if it is one, which I doubt). I think they prove only one thing and that is
that, even if you can make sense of the pictures this man uses to illustrate
his publications, there is serious doubt that the pictures represent the species he thinks they
represent. I have about a hundred pictures taken by Mr. Kloppenburg that I can prove he
mislabeled. Once he gets his film developed,
he guesses their identity. I can show
you many examples of his labeling identical pictures with as many as 8
different names.
This doesn’t look like much of anything to me. I’d certainly not use it to try to prove the
identity of anything. Kloppenburg
labeled it “Ramos #75500
Kloppenburg labeled this one as “Ramos 75500” - So, if Ramos
75500 flowers have “double anther wings, where are they? This is one of the
very few good pictures I have seen that were taken by Kloppenburg. Anther wings are easily seen and they aren’t
“double.”
This pollinarium is labeled on the back (by
Kloppenburg) as “Ramos #75500” – He says that Ramos #75500 is an
Acanthostemma. I plum, flat-out
guarantee that this
is not an Acanthostemma pollinarium and neither are any of those in the 6
pictures labeled as Ramos 75500 pollinaria in this Fraterna 20(4):18. I
guarantee that this pollinarium isn’t from the same species as those are
either!
ALL THIS PROVES IS THAT MR. KLOPPINGBURG HASN’T A CLUE !
………………………..
NOW FOR THE
NITTY-GRITTY
ONCE IN PRINT, IT NEVER GOES AWAY --- AND I AM CHEWING
NAILS-SPITTIN’DARTS ANGRY!!!
It doesn’t matter if what you write
is published or if it is only in private correspondence, once it is in print
(or written by hand) and passes from the writer’s hands to another’s, it just
won’t go away. Many IHA members have
been very critical of me because I dare to criticize DK, TG, AW and the entire
IHA organization. One letter writer
wrote a very vile letter to me asking me how I dared even suggest that Dr.
Kloppenburg who had a PhD in taxonomy was wrong about just about anything
having to do with plants. My reply was that MISTER Kloppenburg did not have a
PhD in anything and that, as far as I know has only a BS and that BS stands for - er – never mind! His BS is in Agronomy, not taxonomy. His title is Mr., not Dr.
IHA and its “holier than thou, goody-two-shoes” statement
of its policy of not commenting, in its publications, on what I write has a lot of people fooled into thinking it
and its officers are more ethical and have more morals than I. That’s pure hogwash! While I am openly critical, I at least offer
my readers documentation which gives them the facts. They DO comment on what I
say in letters that make the rounds and they obviously think I’ll never see
them, however, those who get those letters send copies of them to me, almost as
soon as they get them. Sure, I make mistakes. I’m only human. When I make mistakes, I also make an effort
to correct them. At least I acknowledge
my mistakes which those people rarely do. And I challenge anyone to compare the ones I
make with the ones DK makes. I’m sure
you’ll find that mine can be classed as “normal human error” and his in a
category beyond human comprehension.
The
thing that has me riled up now is a letter written by R. D. Kloppenburg to
someone named Owen. The letter is dated
Also,
Mr. Kloppenburg repeated some of the same things he said in it
on a Internet forum I was once
in. What he said was 100% false and, I
thought, said with the intention of discrediting anything I might say. I replied to the letter, truthfully. I was thrown off the forum for replying to it
but he was kept. Just more proof to me that many hoya lovers are more
interested is “kissin’ up” than learning facts.
I
should probably listen to my 8th grade English teacher, who always
said, “Never explain! Your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe
you anyway.” I do feel that, in this
case, I am entitled to an explanation.
Here
is what Mr. Kloppenburg said in that letter that made my blood boil, “Chris Burton grows her plants in a hot
house shaded by pine trees and nearly all her foliage is longer than usual,
also sicklier. They never looks (sic) like the plants from the Jungle (sic). I believe this is why many of her conclusion are so varied from others.”
I
am trying to augment my income by selling a few hoyas. It hurts me to have people believe that my
plants are sickly. My plants are not
sickly. In fact, Mr. Kloppenburg was
not, at that time buying plants from me AND he had NEVER seen any of my plants
growing in my greenhouse. He had visited
my place only one time. That was in
1984, shortly after my furnace died the first time in history that we had a
below zero F, temperature in the state of
The
reason for his trip was this: I had
phoned Ted Green, who’d maintained that all Hoya type specimens were destroyed
in WW-2, therefore, I’d never be able to prove any of his (TG’s) off the top of
his head identities were wrong. I told
TG that not only were 73 of Schlechter’s hoya holotypes still extant but that I
had them on the lab table at Fernbank in front of me as I spoke to him. Ted didn’t believe me so he called Dale and
asked him what he knew about it. Dale
had a seed salesmen meeting in Nashville a couple of days later and he had to
change planes in Atlanta (no one can go anywhere in the SE US without changing
planes in Atlanta, not even if they are going to heaven or hell – or so they say). He decided to start his trip a day early and
invited himself to visit me. He wanted
to see for himself if I really did have those specimens. He also wanted to see if those specimens
were, as Ted repeatedly says all herbarium specimens are,
leafless twigs.
His
plane was supposed to land around dinner time in the evening so they did not
serve dinner. He had invited me to dine
with him in a local restaurant (my choice).
So I didn’t eat dinner. The plane
didn’t arrive until
During
the time he was here, it rained pitchforks and hammer handles. The sun never even peeped through a cloud. I thought that was why he was mixed up about
directions when on the way back to the airport (when we were about half way
there) he demanded to know why I had turned around and was heading in the
opposite direction. I said, “I haven’t.” He replied, “But that sign says we are
heading north and the airport is south of your house. I told him, “No, the airport is north of my
house. Wouldn’t you think he’d assume I
knew that? Nope! He argued with me, saying that he knew I
lived north of the airport so I had to be traveling in the wrong
direction. I have since learned, from
reading his writing that Kloppenburg doesn’t know east from west, north from
south or up from down.
Examples: On page 3 of World of Hoyas,
he states that
An example (above) showing
that this man doesn’t know up from down can be found in his book, World
of Hoyas on pages 118 and 119.
This page is devoted to Hoya imbricata. He said on page 118, referring to the
clusters of flowers, “The clusters are held upright.” On page 119, there is this picture (see
above) of a vine growing up the trunk of a tree. The vine almost completely covers that tree
trunk. We know that the picture is
upright because we can see the upright, leafy branches with lots of blue sky
behind the branches and the foliage.
There are 4 large umbels of flowers and three small ones (possibly at
bud stage). All of those umbels hang
straight down, definitely not upright.
His
statement that my plants were unhealthy assures that anyone who doesn’t know
the situation will not buy my plants.
His blaming the pine trees that shaded my greenhouse for this was an out
and out lie. I wish I did have a lot of
pine trees shading my greenhouse, my house and my yard. I love pine trees. The fact is that I have only 4 pine trees in
my back yard and none of them shade my greenhouse. All of these pine trees are north of the
greenhouse (from 12 to about 50 feet north).
Just in case you aren’t aware of it,
trees in this hemisphere do NOT cast
shadows to the south so none of those pine trees has ever cast a shadow on
my greenhouse. And even if I had one on
the south side of my greenhouse (which I don’t), it isn’t likely that it would
cast a shadow on it. Southern pines
don’t make much shade anyway as their branches are short and so high off the
ground that the best they can do is filter the sunlight and then only when the
sun is directly overhead. That is when
shade is needed. What shades my greenhouse?
Well, I do have a large oak tree that casts a shadow on the northeast
corner of the greenhouse, giving me about a 5 by 7 foot shady spot which I find
useful for keeping my Holiday Cacti and ferns in some needed shade. The greenhouse is 36 feet long by slightly
more than 12 feet wide. It is 12 feet
tall on the north side and 8 feet tall on the south side. It is located on the southern boundary of my
property. There are NO trees south of
it. The closest trees to the south are about
700 feet to the south!
Those
are the facts!
HELP WANTED: An
Obeah. Have pictures of useful
targets! Will supply free of
charge! --- Just joking?!