PS-TheHoyan

Vol. 9, #1

 

                                                  Fraterna Vol. 22, #2

 

This is late. I just located a copy to review.

 

Errors 1 through 5 – The last 5 pages were not numbered.

 

PAGE 4

 

The cover “story” begins on page 4.  As with all, one wonders why a “story” when subscribers are looking for facts?

This is posing as a scientific publication but the opening paragraph reads like the beginning of a fairy tale one might read to kindergarteners at bedtime.  It starts out, “This is the story of a poor little hoya that had no name of its own.” The hoya in this “story” is the still unidentified sp.  CMF-8. *

Fact:  I am confident that all adults know that no hoya (nor any other plant) has ever had a name of its own until someone found it and gave it a name. I don’t know about the rest of you but I stopped believing in fairy tales when I found myself washing my husband’s dirty socks.  I’m an adult.  I don’t need bedtime “stories” any more, except when I’m having trouble sleeping, in which case, I prefer a Steve Martini, a James Patterson or a Patricia Cornwell “whodunit.”  Deliver me from stories about “poor little hoyas that had no names of their own.” YUK!!!!!!!

 

*It had no name at the time this issue was written.   DK may have taken care of that in Fraterna vol. 22, #4.  – See PS-TheHoyan, vol. 9, #2.

 

Error 1: In listing the various names this has been called, she left out the name Kloppenburg  applied to it in his Phillipine (sic) Hoya Species (pages 62 & 63). There, he labeled it Hoya macgregorii.   

Re the misidentification as Hoya bordenii.  I take the blame.  Wayman takes the blame of calling it Hoya cagayanensis, as she should. 

PAGE 5

 

This page shows a large picture of what appears to be Hoya cagayanensis, though it is difficult to be 100%

sure as the picture quality isn’t good enough to see detail.

Error 1: Punctuation. One partial sentence reads, “According to Dale Kloppenburg.”    In a separate sentence, we find what should have been part of that sentence, “It is perhaps the true species of H. cagayanensis.”

Error 2:  Failure to tell  her readers that Hoya cagayanensis  was published by Kloppenburg as Hoya pimenteliana and that Hoya cagayanensis is the correct name because it came first.

It would have been nice to have been given credit for that identification as I know I was the first to recognize it as Hoya cagayanensis.  I, at first, didn’t believe my own eyes so I wrote to Dr. David Goyder for a ruling as to whether my publication of Hoya cagayanensis  Schltr. ex C. M. Burton was valid or not.  He consulted with Kew’s “Code” expert and told me that it was definitely valid.  I then I shared my finding with David Liddle, who at first didn’t believe me.  Then I sent him a set of my photomicroscopic pictures and a copy of Schlechter’s sketches.  He changed the labeling on his IML-1600 from Hoya pimenteliana  to Hoya cagayanensis in his very next catalog.

 

PAGE 6

 

Error 1:  The plant pictured here is labeled, “Hoya caudata Hooker.”  When, oh when, is Wayman ever going to learn that there were 2 hoya “namers” by the name of Hooker and that it is important to distinguish between them?   Hooker (Hook. is the preferred way to write it) is Sir William Hooker.  Hoya caudata was published by Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker, the son.  The correct way to cite this publication is “Hoya caudata Hook. f.” (for Hooker, the son).

Error 2:  Saying this is one of the most flamboyant in both flower and foliage of all of the hoyas.”  I have grown this for at least 15 years and never saw anything “flamboyant” about it, however, I have found it to be extremely photogenic. It looks “flamboyant” in photographs but, in life, at least under my conditions, it looks a lot like one of Cinderella’s step-sisters!  Well, maybe not so much like one of the step sisters but Cinderella before her fairy godmother cleaned her up, applied lipstick to her lips, blush to her cheeks, mascara to her eyes, curled her hair and gave her a beautiful ball gown and a pair of magic glass slippers.  The foliage is attractive only under ideal conditions and the flowers are small and insignificant as viewed in their natural positions on the plant.  Turn them up and photograph them and you end up with a gorgeous picture.  Leave them on the plant and you could miss seeing them if not looking for them.

Error 3:  Saying that the foliage is “emerald green” in colour, with large splashes of white. I have never seen an emerald green leaf on it.  All I’ve seen on it are dull very dark green leaves or  brown leaves.  Nor have I ever seen white splashes.  I have seen pictures of it with green leaves having splashes of lighter green and also splashes of pink.  All of those “Exotic Angel” pots of it found in local nurseries have brown, thinish leaves, as do those in my greenhouse.  I am sure that the difference between the all brown EA plants; my plants and those of Wayman are due to climate differences.  Such differences should be noted so that people who might be influenced into purchasing it, based on what one says about it will know what to expect. I think all should also be told that it is very hard to keep alive.

Error #4:  She said that there are “long, white, feathery stamens coming off the center of the corona.” Those are not “stamens;” they are anther appendages.  A stamen is “the pollen-producing reproductive organ of  a flower.”   A stamen consists of an anther and a filament (a pollinarium is the hoya equivalent).  The anther appendage is simply a membranous covering attached to the top end of the staminal column.  It serves the sole purpose of  holding the pollinia (the pollen-producing reproductive organs) above the surface of the gynoecium (pistil) until a pollinator comes along and causes a pollinium to be removed from one of the two slots on the undersides of the appendages and  to be placed on the receptive area of the pistil, which is directly beneath it.

This brings to mind the argument concerning whether or not hoyas reproduce parthenogenetically. If they did, why would nature put anther appendages on hoyas and have them hold the pollinia above the receptive area of the pistil?  My observation has been that “nature is stingy.”  It seldom gives us unneeded body parts. When it does, those spare parts are not considered definitive characteristics. They are considered abnormalities.

 

PAGE 7

 

The picture of Hoya benguetensis  appears to be correct to me but I question one of the author’s statements.  She said that Dale Kloppenburg  thought at first that it was probably “Hoya bordenii, based on the shape, length and venation of the leaves.” 

He never told me his reasons for thinking it that species and if he had told me those reasons, I’d have corrected him because the leaves are not the same shape nor the same length as those of Hoya bordenii.  They do have the same type of veining. Foliage differences between these two species are shown in The Hoyan, Vol. 17, #1, (July 1995).

            If I had only two hoyas and if I knew that one was Hoya benguetensis and the other was Hoya bordenii, I could (in a

split second) look at the plants and tell you which is which, even without a bloom on either of them (nor a label). I could tell by their leaf sizes and shapes

The second hoya featured on this page is Hoya pusilla. 

Error:  She said that this was known, for years, as Hoya sp. F-484, until David Liddle identified it as Hoya pusilla.   I have for many years, considered David Liddle a friend.  I liked David because he and I could discuss the pros and cons of things and disagree with one another and still remain friends. David Liddle is not the one who identified F-484 as Hoya pusilla.   I did that and I published my determination  in The Hoyan, vol.17, #4 (April 1996).  I sold it as Hoya pusilla for several years prior to that.

Wayman’s colour description of these flowers is probably right for her conditions but the flowers vary in colour under different conditions.  I got this one in 1975.  The first seven years I had it, I grew it in a greenhouse with 73% shade cloth on top.  I also had a fan that was controlled by a thermostat.  When it was sweltering outside I opened my house door to let the cool air-conditioned air enter the greenhouse.  During those years the corollas were as white as newly fallen snow.  When I moved out to the lake, I didn’t have a greenhouse and had to hang my hoyas on tree limbs  and clothes lines, while the greenhouse was being built.  The hoyas got a lot more sun than they ever had before.  Hoya pusilla blooms that year were dirty white, stained very pale pink and there was a narrow circle of darker pink on the corolla, at the base of the corona. 

I don’t know if it bloomed that colour because of the extra amount of sun or because of the higher temperature.  I suspect it a bit of both.  If you grow this species with lots of shade and with cool temperatures and the colour is pure white, don’t be surprised.

 

PAGES 8 & 9

 

1).       On page 8, there are four pictures of hoya umbels.  None are clear enough to note any identifying details and no foliage can be seen on the one labeled Hoya kenejiana.  It would be impossible to identify  a species by comparing it to this picture.  There are just too many very similar species.  I’d need a few flowers and a microscope to tell what it is.  I have the microscope.  I don’t have the flowers.

Error 1:  She said, “I am not going to comment on the foliage of this particular plant because under my conditions it doesn’t seem to conform to Schlechter’s description or the type sheet.”  She continued by saying, “That may be because some of these old herbarium sheets are in such horrible condition that it’s hard to visualize what they looked like as live branches.” 

I think it far more likely that it doesn’t conform to Schlechter’s description and type sheet because it is not Hoya kenejiana. She implied in that statement that she had seen the type sheet and that it was in bad shape. 

Fact:  Friends, I had the type sheet here on a 6 month loan.  I assure you that this type specimen is in excellent condition and it has a lot of leaves.  I had no trouble, whatsoever, visualizing the sizes and shapes of its leaves, nor any trouble visualizing the vein network. If Wayman had ever seen the type specimen, she should have known that.  When one hasn’t seen a type specimen one should not  try to justify one’s mislabeling by blaming the type specimen. Heck! Even a picture of the type sheet would have been enough for her to know its excellent condition.

           

2).       Next is a picture she alleges is Hoya halophila. Again, I cannot say if it is or not, without actual flowers to

examine. She described the leaves as “slightly roundish.”

Fact:  There are about 8 leaves or partial leaves on the vine in her picture.  Every one of them is oblanceolate in shape.  Judging from their size in relation to the flowers, a rough guess as to actual size, I believe, is about ˝ inch wide by about 2 ˝ inches long.  The leaves on Schlechter’s type are not “roundish.”  They are completely round except for a short apiculum at the point opposite the petiole.  They measure approximately the same as a US  25˘ coin. 

I used to have four species, sent to me by the late Geoff Dennis of the Solomon Islands.  They had been growing on a tree which had been topped by a storm.  Most of the trunk was still standing but all the branches were gone (He sent a picture of the tree trunk in the box with the cuttings).  Geoff thought that all were  Hoya halophila. All had round leaves.  I planted them and all of them put out oblanceolate leaves.  When they flowered, I learned they were three species.  Not one of them ever grew another round leaf.    After that experience, I’d never try to identify any of those small Solomon Island  species without flowers and a microscope. The similar Solomon Island species that are often confused (and frequently lumped into one) are Hoya halophila, Hoya litoralis, Hoya inconspicua, and Hoya dodecatheiflora. Of the four, I believe that Hoya halophila should be the easiest to identify because it’s corona has a feature on its underside that I’ve never seen on another hoya, though the lower surface of Hoya sp. DS-70 is similar. I’d need flowers and my microscope to know for certain which is it.

Error 2: Hoya kentiana Burton should read, Hoya kentiana C. M. Burton (to distinguish me from several other Burtons).

Error 3:  She described its corona as being shaped like a Chinese pagoda. 

Fact:  The lady doesn’t have a clue as to what a Chinese pagoda is.  If you are similarly ignorant on the subject, go to PS-TheHoyan, vol. 7, #2.  You’ll find a picture of one there. There are no hoyas with coronas that look like a pagoda.  There are several with coronas that look like miniature minarets. A minaret looks sort of like an onion. Some of the coronas on the wee Acanthostemmas look a bit like tiny minarets (or wee onions).

 

PAGES 10 & 11

 

Pictured here are 6 hoyas.

Error #1:  Upper left is a picture labeled, “Hoya metalica a hybrid cross.”  When, oh when, will this lady ever learn the correct way to write a cultivar name?  One could excuse it, if it were written by a novice plant person, but an editor of what she calls a “scientific publication” should conform to the dictates of the Code.  The correct way to write that is Hoya cv. Metalica.  To be completely correct, one would add the hybridizer’s name.

I’d do it here but I don’t know it. The rule is: “Species names are lower cased; cultivar names are upper cased.”

            Error #2 & 3: She said, of Hoya calycina, “The flowers are much like Hoya australis var. australis

but not as large.

Fact 2:  It’s “subsp. australis,” not “var. australis.” I am sure that she has another Hoya australis  

subspecies confused with subsp. australis, as that one doesn’t look like this at all. 

Fact 3:  The flowers of Hoya calycina are much larger than those of  any subspecies of Hoya australis. They are so large that, back in the 1950s and 1960s sellers were advertising them as Hoya coronaria.

Error #4:  She, again, has credited Hooker with authoring the name of a plant.  In this case it is Hoya micrantha.  It was Hooker f. (J. D. Hooker, the son) not Sir William Hooker.

 

PAGES 12 & 13

 

At the top left is a picture labeled,  Hoya hypolasia, Schltr.  It is a species that I have grown and bloomed.  I don’t believe that there is but one clone of it in circulation so the flower colour in that picture is a long way off.  All the flowers I have seen in bloom are yellow.  Those in this picture have white corollas and pink coronas.

Errors #1 & #2: At the bottom right, there is a picture labeled “Hoya palawanica Schlechter ex Kloppenburg, but on page 12 in the mini description she calls it “Hoya palawanica Schl. ex Kloppenburg.” 1).  This, most definitely, is NOT Hoya palawanica. 2).  The correct abbreviation, for Schlechter, is Schltr. not Schl.

Error #3 & #4:  She credited the authorship of Hoya inflata as “Wann. & Forester.”

Fact 3:  The man’s name is Forster, not Forester.

Fact 4:  This should read, “Hoya inflata  (D. Liddle, P. I. Forster & I. M. Liddle) Wann. et  P. I. Forster.”

Error 5: She credited someone named Bailey for authoring Hoya macgillivrayi.  The author was F. M. Bailey.  The initials need to be added in order to distinguish between him and the more famous L. H. Bailey.

Other errors:  To be perfectly correct, all of Green’s and Kloppenburg’s publications should have their initials appended to distinguish between them and other authors with the same last names.  Index Herbariorum lists a “Ch. Kloppenburg, who collected in Java in 1938.  There are nine Greens listed there and another seven Greenes.

 

PAGES 14 & 15

 

The top picture on the left is labeled Hoya globulifera.  Ms. Wayman expressed doubt that it’s identity is correct. She said, “The leaves have very short leaf stems (sessile), are rather flat, 2 ˝  - 3 inches long and a rather dull grayish green. 

Error #1:  In the above sentence, she defined short leaf stems (petioles) as “sessile.” Leaf stems are “petioles.” Short petioles are “short petioles.”  Leaves that are sessile have no petioles at all. 

 

Hoya globulifera Blume (IML-1063).

Photo by David Liddle

 

The above picture is part of a full page of  pictures featuring this species.  There are lots more leaves and all that show have petioles like the one at the bottom on the right.  None of the leaves are sessile.  The best identification markers on this species are the white dots at the leaf bases.  And, the leaves don’t look almost flat to me, neither in the above picture nor on the plant I recently killed with too much loving care.

 

Error #2: She labeled the second picture on the left as¸ ”Hoya cv. “chouke.” This woman set herself up as an editor of her society bulletin in 1988, only a few months after learning there were any hoyas other than  carnosa, compacta  and possibly, pubicalyx.  Wouldn’t you think that by now she’d know the correct way to write cultivar names?    Again:   Cultivar names are always supposed to be upper cased.  The correct label for this one is:

Hoya cv. Chouke  or  you may label it, Hoya ‘Chouke’….. Never use double quotation marks and never write it with both  the abbreviation cv. and quotation marks.

There isn’t anything complicated about that.  One would think that in 22 years this lady would have learned.  You’d think that in 22 years a lot of dues payers would have fired her sorry a--…. Er, uh …rear exposure.

 Error #3:  Same as #2…. Only this time she made the same error in calling the hoya  (center, right) Hoya cv. “mathilde.”

Error #4: Upper right picture is labeled Hoya wallichii Wight.  It should be Hoya wallichii (Wight) C. M. Burton.  That is because Wight did not publish this as a hoya.  He published  it as Pterostelma wallichii Wight.  I moved it from  Pterostelma  to Hoya.  When a species is moved from one genus to another, the original author’s name should always appear in parentheses between the species name and the mover’s name.

Error #5:  On page 15, she misspelled Hoya waymaniae ( on page 15) as waymanii). For crying out loud, a person surely ought to know the correct way to spell a species that was named for her!

Error #6:  She misspelled Hoya wibergiae (on page 15) as Hoya wibergii.

Error #7  On pages 14 & 15, she again wrote “Hoya wallichii Wight.”  That should be Hoya wallichii (Wight) C.M. Burton.  That’s because Wight didn’t publish it as a Hoya.  He published it as a Pterostelma.  I moved it from Pterostelma to Hoya.

Yeah!  I know that is repetitious but, sometimes repeating something over and over and over and over (into infinity) is the only want you can get through dense skulls!

 

PAGES 16 THROUGH 22

 

There isn’t anything of much interest to me in these pages.  The article by Vic Sencindiver is a repeat of one he wrote for Fraterna ten years ago.  I’ve read it before.  I’d not be interested in reading it again, but I must say that it is an improvement over everything in this issue that came before it.

 The last 5 pages are not numbered and one of them is completely blank (not a single error on it, which is refreshing but, it is a waste of a natural resource, paper).