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
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 ½ inch wide by about 2 ½ 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
Error 2: Hoya
kentiana
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.
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 ½ - 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).