Vol. 8, #3
This is not Hoya picta Miquel!!!!!!!!!!
Hoya carnosa R. Br. var. picta Sieb. cv. Rubra Cobia
Trademark name: Krimson Princess.
Question: What are your thoughts on Fraterna Volumes 21, #4 and. 22, #1? – Several who’d best be left nameless to protect them from abuse. The question came from people on the east coast of US; the west coast of US and several points in-between, plus two countries in Europe.
Answer: My answer almost exactly matches that of Torill Nyhuus, whose letter was published on pages 14 & 15 of Volume 22, #1. Ms. Nyhuus said (of Volume 21, #4), “Unfortunately , this is the worst mess I ever have seen!” and then she said, “IF I WAS A GENERAL COLLECTOR, WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION FROM MY INVOLVEMENT IN THE SWEDISH SOCIETY, I WOULD NOT RENEW MY MEMBERSHIP IN IHA – AND I WOULD ADVISE MY FRIENDS TO TERMINATE THEIR MEMBERSHIPS AS WELL.
That is so much my opinion that she could have been quoting me instead of me quoting her. The upper casing is mine. The only thing Ms. Nyhuus said that I don’t entirely agree with is that this isn’t the worst mess I’ve ever seen, though it comes close to matching the first few years worth of Ms. Wayman’s so-called “editing.” This is actually an improvement over those first issues. Yes, I know that is hard to believe, but it is a fact.
SOME OF WHAT I FOUND WRONG WITH VOLUME 21, #4:
As with all issues of Fraterna I found lots of wasted space. Ann Wayman obviously is not a member of the “Save our Trees Club.” Hey, hoochie mama, what are hoyas in habitat gonna grow on when you (and people like you) use up all the trees??? Don’t you know that the paper you’re wasting was made from trees??? Think about it!!!! The sin is multiplied due to Ms. Wayman’s use of a rather expensive grade of paper, that not only adds to the cost but it takes more trees to make it.
I saw in this issue (as in almost all issues of this publication) page after page of colour pictures that, I believe, only God would be able to recognize. I am sure that no mere human would ever be able to identity any hoya by comparing flowers or flower parts to any of Mr. Kloppenburg’s pictures and isn’t that their purpose? The only picture in the entire issue that I think would be useful in species identification is the one on page 8. It is of a single pollinarium, alleged to belong to Hoya flagellata. From what I see, I believe it to be the bottom side, which is not visible except when removed from the flower and turned over. The thing that really puzzles me is why an entire page was needed to illustrate something that measures less than 1 mm. long. The text says that the pollinarium was enlarged to 82 times its actual size. I’m not a good enough mathematician to check the accuracy of that statement but, regardless of whether or not that is true, the resulting picture measures approximately 1½” X 2¾.” Cropping off the plain gray background and the needless arrow pointing at the pollinarium (as if anyone would need its help in finding it) would save paper; save trees; help maintain hoya habitats and slow down global warming. Plus that, economizing on the cost of paper and ink might enable one to reduce dues.
Page 9 is a mess. As Torill said in her letter, it is doubtful that the publication of a hoya named Hoya xxxxx Kloppenburg will be deemed a valid publication. If the Code recognizes the name as Hoya tamaleaaea, the spelling will be automatically corrected to whatever it is supposed to be, as the wrong ending of the name is, I believe, an orthographic error. I could be wrong.
On this same page he gives a brief history of the family of the man for whom he named the species. I was completely disgusted with his choice of names. I think it great to honor US Marine Corp heroes from WW-2 (or any other war) but I do not believe that honoring them by naming hoyas for them is appropriate. Honor them in the next issue of your local veterans newsletter. Give them a plaque at the next veterans reunion. Prevail upon his home town to name a street for him or place a statue of him in the town square. Name hoyas for people who have contributed to a better understanding of the Hoya Genus. I think that the only non-hoya entities that Kloppenburg knows that he hasn’t named a hoya for are those stray cats that hang around his back yard and are in and out of his greenhouse all day and night. They at least fertilize his hoyas when they lift their hind legs over the pile of potting soil he keeps stored on the ground next to the back door (a nematode maternity ward if I ever saw one). I was there; I saw it and I saw pots being filled from that pile and hoya cuttings planted in it. I was even recruited to help fill those pots and plant those cuttings. I can think of several people more deserving of having hoyas named for them than most of those that Kloppenburg has chosen to honor. Some that come to mind are Dr. David Goyder, Dr. P. I. Forster, David Liddle, Chanin Thorut, Anders Wennström, Carin Wahlström, Dr. Obchant Thaithong, and Michael Miyashiro (who taught a lot of us dummies how to hybridize hoyas and whose hoya hybrids abound)!
It only took Wayman 5 pages to record all the text and lousy pictures, accompanied by lots of blank space on each page to present us with this very flawed publication of the above hoya with the questionable name. These pages are a jumble of alternating type sizes and out of focus pictures that are unrecognizable as being what they are labeled. Not one of the pictures is something anyone would want to hang on a wall and admire. So what’s the point of publishing them?
Page 11 is just as sloppy as the rest, though it switches type size only once. I found this page noteworthy only for a very puzzling phrase used by either Ms. Wayman or by Mr. Kloppenburg among all the useless measurements given there. It says (of the pollinarium translator), “widest depth 0.5 mm.” I’ve never heard of anyone measuring the width of a depth. Is such a thing possible?
All through the first half of that piece, references were made to this species being similar to Hoya filiformis. Believe me, none of that crew ever saw a Hoya filiformis. I’m beginning to believe that I may be the only person who ever has seen Hoya filiformis (besides Rechinger) and recognized it for what it really is. It certainly is not the hoya being sold as that by a few vendors.
Page 14 starts still another “Nova Species.” This one is called Hoya nuuuliensis Kloppenburg and Siar. The page has a lot of wasted space and funny sentence structure. At least one sentence started with a lower case letter. After an indentation, on a line by itself, we find the following: “cuneate. Nearest to Hoya samoensis.” This is followed by a carriage return. A new paragraph begins. It consists of a single sentence, followed by a repeat of “cuneate. Nearest to Hoya samoensis.” I never figured out what was cuneate but I didn’t really try.
Page 17 has a picture of a corona. It, though poor, is probably the best flower part picture in the entire issue (except for that pollinarium on page 8). The inner apex of at least three lobes in that picture are visible to someone looking closely for the parts Mr. Kloppenburg mentioned. He had to have seen those three lobes with his own eyes to have photographed them but, obviously he wasn’t looking. He said of the corona lobes, “inner apex short and MOST LIKELY dentate (Upper case mine). Why, I wonder, isn’t he sure if they are dentate or not? They surely look it to me. But – maybe what he isn’t sure of is if his photograph is of the species he has it labeled.
Page 18 is the beginning of still another name publication. This time it is Hoya faoensis Kloppenburg and Siar. They included a picture of the holotype specimen but it is reduced so much that I can’t read what it says even with lens implants and a magnifying glass. Among the misspelled words is one word that I have never known Kloppenburg to spell correctly. It is the word, “species.” He continues, year after year to spell it “specie,” even after both our friend, Ben Hardy and I, repeatedly corrected him, both privately and in print, telling him that “specie” is “the coin of the realm,” not singular for species. Singular for species is species and the plural for species is species!
Having photographed hundreds of corollas, I don’t for a NY second believe that this Hoya faoensis has campanulate corollas, as alleged by Kloppenburg. No campanulate corolla I ever photographed would lie completely flat, as Mr. Kloppenburg’s pictures show, without being pinned down to a flat surface and without having the corolla split from the sinuses to the center. I believe that what he perceived as campanulate were flowers that had passed prime bloom stage and had begun to close up again, as all hoya flowers do.
On page 19 we learn that Hoya faoensis corona lobes are “very stiff, touch in the center.”
On page 20 we find more of a mix in type sizes on the top right quarter of the page and a picture of a very distorted pollinarium on the upper left quarter. The picture is useless for species identification purposes. And it surely isn’t decorative, so what’s the point of wasting space on it?
The bottom half of page is titled: “Description of the above herbarium sheet:” There is no “above herbarium sheet.” A picture of one follows on page 21. The rest of page 20 is filled with text that begins thus: “5714 18 May 1981 Upolu, Samoa. Originally as Hoya filiformis Reich, then in 1990 determined as
Hoya betchei (Schltr.) Whistler,” etc. Whose 5714 isn’t noted here but the picture of the specimen that follows probably validates the publication. The error here is in citing Hoya filiformis Reich (who didn’t publish a single hoya). Hoya filiformis was published by Rechinger, not Reich. I looked up Reich in Index Herbariorum and the name isn’t listed. There are, however about a half dozen names that begin with the letters, Reich- whose names could be so abbreviated. Not one of them was listed as having collected in any location where hoyas are known to be native.
Hoya lazaroi Kloppenb. & Siar 2007 came up next. I don’t know if that means that Siar is #2007 or if they were referring to a previous publication in the year 2007. If so, why is this published as if it were a new species? Why did she not cite the title, date, where published and page number? And while I’m at it, why did Ms. Wayman upper case the species name as Lazaroi? Surely, by now she ought to know that the species name is supposed to be spelled with all lower case letters. If this is an original publication of the name, then I say it is not a valid publication because it doesn’t make it clear what the holotype specimen is or where its native habitat is. Cited as type is #70361. I’m sure that there must be hundreds of herbarium sheets in various herbaria with that number, each of which belongs to a different collector (and most likely a different genus). There are likely to be others with the same number in the same herbarium where this one is located.
There are 12 colour pictures of various bits and pieces of a hoya flower. As many hoyas as I’ve examined microscopically, I can’t even figure out what parts they are. I did recognize a couple of pollinaria and I am convinced that each came from a different species. All the text is jumbled up with mixed type sizes; sentences that are not complete and just about every other kind of error.
On page 25, there are finally three pictures that look like Hoyas. All three are labeled Hoya lazaroi. They don’t look even remotely like Kloppenburg’s description and I see no part of the flowers that look like any part of the 12 pictures of flower parts he used on the preceding pages. Actually, he didn’t use pictures of flower parts. He used pictures of parts of flower parts, i. e., a part of a corona lobe, a part of a corolla lobe; a part of a calyx, etc. It was delightful to see a plant and flowers on this page. If Hoya lazaroi isn’t Hoya lobbii, I’ll eat the first one I encounter for desert, with or without whipped cream and chocolate syrup atop it!
Page 26 is an ad for the Kloppenburg/Wayman book The World of Hoyas. It claims it is one of a kind. We can thank God for that! In it Ms. Wayman managed to make wrong even the very few things Kloppenburg got right in the original version.
Page 27 contains Ms. Wayman’s descriptions of 6 hoyas that are pictured on page 28. I will comment on only two. The one at the bottom on the left is, SO SHE SAYS, Hoya revolubilis. I do not believe it is because it does not appear to me to match the type of that species. She says that she got it labeled H. kung ming kina. Actually, it was distributed and written up in Swedish publications as Hoya sp. Kunming, Kina. What that means is “sp. from Kunming, China.” Pictures alleged to belong to this species can be found on at least a dozen Web sites. Almost every one of those pictures appears to belong to a different species. The problem is knowing which hoya it is as the Larkin picture sent to a lot of us from Sweden appears to have two different species in it. My plant is huge but has never bloomed. Pickled flowers sent to me by the same person who sent the plant, appear to be the same species as in Dr. Obchant Thaithong’s picture which she labeled as Hoya oreogena (but with flowers of a different colour). She also sent flowers for me to study. She said that Hoya revolubilis is a synonym of Hoya oreogena, however the flowers do not match the type, nor do the leaves. My plant has buds so maybe I can soon learn which of the various pictures I’ve seen is it. If it turns out to be Hoya revolubilis, I’ll eat crow!
The second Wayman picture I will comment on is the one in the center on the right. She calls it Hoya vaccinioides Hooker. First off, Hooker (Sir William Jackson) did not publish a Hoya vaccinioides. It was his son, Hooker f. (Sir Joseph Dalton), who did that. Ms. Wayman rarely credits the right one. I sent the late Hon. Douglas H. Kent cuttings and flowers of this plant as soon as I got them (in the early 1990s). He compared them with Hooker f.’s type and told me that, “No way could it be Hoya vaccinioides.” I’d take his word over just about anybody’s I know.
Now, here is the number one reason that Ann Wayman should never be allowed to edit anything, anytime, or anywhere. She is suspected, by me, of having Alzheimer’s or something similar. I’m not a doctor but I’ve read all the symptoms and know some people who had it. They are no longer with us! She said that she’d first purchased the plant as Hoya wee bella. Since I was the first distributor of this one in US, I am prepared to say that she got it labeled Wee Bella. Within about a month of my featuring it in The Hoyan, Professor P. T. Li published it as Hoya dickasoniana but Wayman wasn’t paying attention. Here’s how I know. Wayman said right here on page 27 of this extremely boring issue of Fraterna, “Since I haven’t been able to find a valid publishing of H. wee bella I will continue to consider it as Hoya vaccinioides until proven different.” Listen up, Anabel, your partner in hoya crime validly published the name Hoya weebella Kloppenb. in Fraterna, Vol. 18, #2 in 2005, just about 12 years after P. T. Li validly published it as Hoya dickasoniana. I, at first, thought the name weebella would not be recognized as a Code approved name but two taxonomists reminded me that one can name a species anything one wants to as long as it is “Latinized” by spelling it with a Latin ending. They reminded me that “bella” is Latin (it means beautiful) and that “wee,” an English word, was given a Latin ending by removing the space between it and the word bella. NOTE: Being valid does not mean that it is the legitimate name. The first validly published name for any species is the legitimate one. That name is Hoya dickasoniana, unless one concedes that I’m right and this is a variety or subspecies of Hoya bella. My photomicrographs show all flower parts to be identical except for size.
Last, but not least, the illustration on the back cover of this issue of Fraterna IS NOT Hoya flagellata Kerr, as Wayman labeled it. It is R. Rintz’s illustration of Hoya caudata. He labeled it Hoya caudata. Wayman changed the label. If she wanted an authentic illustration of Hoya flagellata why didn’t she use the one that accompanied Kerr’s publication? Here’s a copy of it:
WHAT I FOUND WRONG WITH VOLUME 22, #1:
1): There is a picture on the cover that appears to be Hoya carnosa R. Br. var. picta (Sieb), a variety with pale pink flowers. It could be the cultivar Rubra but it doesn’t look it to me. Hoya carnosa cv. Rubra (Trademark name, Krimson Princess See picture above) has deep pink to mauve pink flowers and much more vividly coloured leaves. The plant in Ms. Wayman’s picture is going to go all green before long if someone doesn’t do some serious pruning. Ms. Wayman has labeled the plant as Hoya picta Miquel, which it IS NOT!.
Miquel has never been associated with the plant pictured and certainly did not name it. The plant that Miquel published in 1856 was Hoya picta (Blume) Miq. Blume had published this species in 1849 as Acanthostemma pictum Blume. What Miquel did was simply move it to the Hoya Genus. Here is Blume’s drawing of the wee species, Acanthostemma pictum:
As you can see, it looks nothing at all like the hoya on the cover of this Fraterna issue. I happen to know that Ann Wayman has (or had) copies of The Hoyan that contained copies of this illustration. If she’s lost them, I’d like to suggest that she take herself to the closest Land Grant College Library and look for copies of the references listed below. If they don’t have them, I’m sure she can get Xerox copies via Interlibrary Loan. Heck, she might even be able to obtain them on line.
Blume, Carl, Mus. Bot, p. 58, fig. X (1849).
Blume, Carl, Rumphia 4: 29 (1848).
Martin, Roger L. (for Barnell L. Cobia) US Patent Docket #3105 (1970), Robert E. Bagwell, Primary Examiner.
Miquel, F. A. W., Fl. Ind. Bat. II: 524 (1856).
Siebold, Ann. Soc. Roy. Agric. Gand. 4:t. 218 (1848).
2): I know I am repeating myself and you may find it boring but sometimes one has to be obnoxious to get a point across!!! I was sickened by the amount of wasted space in all issues of Fraterna but Vol. 22, #1 really “takes the cake!” It had 2 and ½ completely blank pages in addition to top, bottom and side margins being so large that one could half them and still have more margins that any other publication I’ve ever seen has.
3): On page 4, Ms. Wayman said, “This particular plant on the cover, with the yellow or cream center has been known to have at least 30 different names.” Really now, that is a gross exaggeration. It has been called about a half dozen different names but, in fact, has had only one name. If Ms. Wayman knows of 30 different names it has been called, she has the obligation to list those names. After all, her uninformed readers would like to know so that if they have plants with those names they can correct their labels. Maybe I’m just out of the loop but the only names I’m aware of this one being called are the ones I’ve already mentioned over and over and over again. They are Hoya carnosa var. picta; Hoya exotica and Hoya marmorata and by the cultivar and trademark names of Rubra and Krimson Princess. Hoya picta Miq. isn’t variegated, though it does sometimes have some reddish speckling on its leaves.
4): Ms. Wayman said (In paragraph 3), “Most growers are under the impression that this and some other variegated hoyas are in the Hoya carnosa complex and the flowers are very similar, however Miquel published this hoya as a species in its own right, and we do find variegated specimens in many other species.” THE FACT IS, as stated above, Miquel NEVER mentioned this hoya, NOT ANYWHERE; NOT AT ANYTIME; NOT AT ANY PLACE. And, yes, most hoya growers are under the impression that this and some other variegated hoyas are in the Hoya carnosa “complex” because they are in the Hoya carnosa “complex.” Thank goodness, most hoya growers have “smarts!”
5): On page 5, Ms. Wayman shows us 4 pictures of variegated hoyas, three of which are definitely mislabeled and one that I suspect is mislabeled too. Is it asking too much to expect the editor of a botanical publication to know the correct way to type the names of species and cultivars? Ms. Wayman isn’t an editor. She’s just a lousy typist. Again, from the beginning, lady. The correct way to write a cultivar name is: Genus name begins in upper case; species name begins lower case; each word of cultivar name begins upper case and is either enclosed in single quotation marks (not double) or the quotation marks may be omitted by inserting the abbreviation, cv. (for cultivar) between the species name and the cultivar name. Genus name and species name are supposed to be either underlined or italicized. Cultivar names are not italicized. Not once have I ever seen Wayman comply with those simple rules.
Bottom left: The plant pictured is NOT Hoya latifolia.*
Another thing wrong here (and just about everywhere else, is the name ‘Albomarginata’ used as a cultivar name. The Code for Cultivated Plants says that cultivar names be in the vernacular, never Latin. Latin is for Genera and species. English, French, Swedish, Italian, Spanish, or whatever language the author speaks or writes in, is the language to be used for cultivars.
Page 6: If those two on the left are truly Hoya verticillata (which I doubt) then they need to be given cultivar names and be published. This issue would have been a good one to do that. It would have given substance to an otherwise dull publication, but only if someone who knows the Code for Cultivated Plants and can read it with understanding, publishes it. I feel sure that Ms. Wayman doesn’t qualify. I haven’t seen flowers of those and the leaf venation doesn’t show, so I can’t add more. The two on the right are more familiar to me, but I haven’t seen flowers of either of them either. That picture of ‘Lisa’ doesn’t do it justice. It is a lot prettier than that. I think it is the most beautiful variegated hoya I’ve ever seen. I don’t much like variegated hoyas but I really “dig” that one.
6): Pages 10 & 11: Page 10 contains descriptions of the 6 pictures on page 11. Top left: is labeled Hoya pentaphlebia Merr. I’m pretty sure that is correct but I have long suspected that it may be a synonym for another species. I won’t say what yet as I want to study these two more. Left Center: I don’t yet have flowers on my plant so I can’t comment, though I do suspect that it is a synonym of another species. Bottom Left: This is definitely MISLABELED. The flowers pictured DO NOT belong to Hoya latifolia. Wayman’s plant is either Hoya clandestina, Hoya polystachya or Hoya tjadasmalangensis. I can’t tell you which without flowers to examine. Top right: is labeled Hoya dischorensis. I am sure that this is the same one that I got from Ted Green many years ago (or the one my mother got for me as he won’t sell to me – if he’d known my mother’s name, I doubt he’d have sold to her either). The reason I believe that is because of statements Ms. Wayman made elsewhere about her association with Mr. Green and also, for what I see in this picture. It is a good bloomer. I made a lot of photomicrographic pictures of all of its flower parts. These pictures were compared with the flower parts of Schlechter’s holotype specimen. They do not match. I do not know what this one is but I’m working on it. I sent copies of my photomicrographs to David Liddle and he wrote back, saying that he was not familiar with this one. The corolla of this species is glabrous in the center and has a distinct, well defined, border of hairs. The hairs of Schlechter’s Hoya dischorensis are evenly distributed over the entire surface of the corolla. The flower colour of this plant doesn’t match Schlechter’s holotype either. These flowers are yellow. Schlechter’s flowers were creamy white, per Schlechter, which may or may not be important. The corona lobes of this species are not as broad as those of Schlechter’s Hoya dischorensis and in profile the corona lobes are shown, under magnification to be almost completely flat on top, while those of Schlechter’s Hoya dischorensis are shaped like a western saddle. The corona of this plant sits in a saucer shaped depression in the center of the corolla. There is no such saucer shaped depression in the center of Schlechter’s Hoya dischorensis. If you look closely at Wayman’s picture (with a hand held magnifying lens, you can see the depression in the center of the corolla and the margin of hairs.
I have not yet bloomed the species called Hoya juannguoiana Kloppenb. but I strongly suspect it to be a previously published species. I believe that the other two pictures are correctly labeled, even though the flower colours do not exactly match their name publication. I say this with reservations as I have not had flowers to examine myself.
Most of pages 12 and 13 apply to conditions where Ms. Wayman lives and may or may not apply to the place where you live. I don’t think that anything said on those two pages (except for one thing), if followed, would harm your plants. The one thing that I believe would harm them is to fertilize them with ½ strength fertilizer at every watering. Every experienced plant person I’ve discussed this with, including a lot of professionals (and my Master Garden instructors), recommend that you either follow the less frequent, full strength fertilizing schedule recommended on the fertilizer container OR that you use ¼ strength every time you water. I believe that ½ strength at every watering is too much fertilizer. Of course, that might depend on how often you water. In August here, it is usually every day, while in December, January and February it is once or week or, sometimes, even less often. I also believe that you should not fertilize at all from October until about the end of February or during those months fertilize with a formula that contains no nitrogen – something like 0-10-10. One champion bloomer I know uses 0-30-30 during the winter months. Even if you live in the so-called “sunny south,” as I do. Sudden unseasonable freezes sometimes take us by surprise. Our plants won’t suffer as much damage if they don’t have a lot of tender new growth that would be present if we fertilized with a fertilizer containing nitrogen all year long.
Page 14 and 15: These two pages contain the full text of Torill Nyhuus’ letter. The entire contents says what I’ve been saying about Ms. Wayman since she first appeared on the scene in the fall of 1987. She has improved some since then (I think she must have gotten her GED) as she no longer has up to 45 misspelled words per page of her writing, as she did the first few years she “edited” (a term used loosely here). I haven’t seen the amount of plagiarism on her part that used to fill the pages of her bulletins. Those are improvements.
I sent similar letters to Dale Kloppenburg and various IHA board members over the years and all of my letters were returned to me by the P.O., unopened because they knew I’d be criticizing them I got replies to only my first letter. In that one I suggested that they make the corrections or I’d have to do it in The Hoyan. Mr. Kloppenburg told me to “go ahead and do it because we won’t.” Mr. Everson wrote and told me, “You have no right to criticize the contents of Fraterna because you are not a member of IHA. My reply to him was that I was not an owner or member of the board of his own hometown newspaper but I had been asked to review a book for its Sunday edition (the editor’s sister was a friend and knew I had read the book, which, it seemed nobody else had). I told Mr. Everson that anyone who wrote anything that was sold to the public should expect his writing to be read and critiqued and that no critique meant much if only the writers of said garbage had the right to critique it. I wonder why Torill’s critique was published and mine never were even read when I sent them??? Could Ms. Wayman have become “Born agin” ??????? Ms. Nyhuus wrote, “I will write an article about those errors and mistakes in Hoyatelegrafen. It is my duty as editor to inform our members about the untrustworthiness (or unreliability) of Fraterna. When I said the same in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Wayman composed and put on her masthead page, a statement referring to my criticism, which I know was meant for me because no one else was criticizing her editing at that time. The statement said that they would NOT comment on any criticisms published in other newsletters or bulletins as those statements were matters of opinion only.
Next issue of PS-TheHoyan will be about Hoya latifolia.
Several of the HoyasRUs forum members have written and asked me to define some abbreviations found on dealer sales’ lists and to define the meanings of words, such as. petioles, peduncles, pedicels, and pentacles. I will also begin a glossary in the next issue which is almost ready.