Vol. 11, #5

JUNE 1, 2011




Hoya calycina (USDA-354235)



GREEN-PLANT RESEARCH – What it is and what it isn’t!

What you get when you order from this business.


         If what a witness by the name of Dale Kloppenburg once told me (in writing) is true and  that he had seen this research lab, then it isn’t what I’d call a research lab.  He said it was a shelf in the hall closet which held some containers where Mr. Green was trying to grow hoyas by the tissue culture method. I don’t know if that is true or not but such a close “friend” should know. Mr. Green demonstrated in pictures on his web site catalog that he grows hoyas all over his yard and up the side of a steep hill behind his house.  Several people who had visited his place to purchase hoya cuttings from him, reported in Hoya Society International Robins that when they gave him the name of the hoya they wanted, he’d go over to his compost pile and stir around in it a minute or two and come up with a weed-eater or machete chewed cutting and say, “Ah, this is it?”  Then he charged them what they considered a ridiculously high price for it.  Those people said that they were too embarrassed to refuse to buy it but they were very unhappy and doubtful that what they got was what they asked for.  When I read that, I told the writers that they should not feel embarrassed but that Mr. Green should be embarrassed.  After it got around that his walk in customers were spilling the beans, things changed.  Before long, robin members reported visiting there and asking to buy hoya cuttings saying that Mr. Green insisted that they leave a list and a check and that he’d mail the cuttings to them when they got home.  They didn’t like that either. That could have been just a case of people not being pleased, no matter what the situation but, to me, it just stands to reason that if someone would fill an order from his compost pile while a customer watched that the order will be filled from even deeper in the compost pile when no one is watching.  I never visited Green:Plant Research myself.  I report only what was written in those robin letters.  Oh, yes, I kept Xerox copies of those robins letters.

            I don’t pretend to know what all of the hoya names this seller lists are but there are a lot that I know a bit about.


Hoya albiflora: Mr. Green says that this is USDA-354235.  I once made the mistake of thinking that but was quickly corrected by people who knew more than I did about that particular clone, namely Dr. P. I. Forster and his friend, David J. Liddle. It definitely is not Hoya albiflora.  If you want a Hoya albiflora, try finding someone who has one labeled, IML-299.  If you want the one that I believe is the best blooming clone of Hoya calycina,  then Mr. Green’s  USDA-354235 is the one you want.


Hoya andalensis:  described as similar to Hoya incurvula.  I haven’t seen Mr. Green’s plant so I don’t know what it is but I do know that the plant described and illustrated in Kloppenburg’s Hoya andalensis name publication is Hoya incurvula.  


Hoya archboldiana 41-28, the pink flowered one.  Mr. Green’s text appears to indicate that this is Hoya archboldiana var. archboldiana, which isn’t true. This is not the typical form of this species. 


Hoya archboldiana YMExecllent is NOT THE CORRECT NAME FOR THIS PLANT.   This is Hoya archboldiana var. archboldiana (or subsp. archboldiana). I have seen and photographed C. Norman’s holotype specimen, which is housed at NY Botanical Garden.  I compared it with this plant and they match, exactly.  YMExcellent is a name with no status.  What it means is that Ted bought his start from an Australian hoya seller by the name of York Meredith and thought it an excellent plant. 


Hoya australis subsp. keysii YM is, I suspect,  Hoya australis subsp. australis.  The YM also stands for York Meredith. There is another one that I consider to be Hoya australis subsp. keysii but there has been no publication of a subsp. keysii so, officially, there is no such subspecies. If you bought this one and it is pubescent all over, then what you have is Hoya australis subsp. australis.  This was sold during the 1960s and 1970s as Hoya keysii.  That was wrong.  The hoya published as Hoya keysii is one with leaves that are glabrous on top and pubescent beneath. Unlike the one with fuzz all over, it is more likely to bloom for you and when it does, the flowers are more colourful.


Hoya bella var. paxtonii: He says it is “from horticulture.”  As far as I know, this is not true.  It certainly isn’t written up as that in any publication I’ve seen and I’ve seen just about all hoya literature prior to the year 2000.  The particular clone that is circulating in US trade as this one was imported by a friend of mine, Dewey Fisk.  It came to him as string used to tie up a bundle of orchids from Java.  Dewey and Jerry Horne (aka Trader Horne) were my sources for a lot of hoyas that had been used as string to tie up bundles of other species.  They weren’t interested in hoyas so I got them from Dewey for free and from Jerry Horne for a very small price.


Hoya benitotanii – This completely puzzles me.  What is pictured here and what was sold to me as Hoya gigantanganensis (What Mr. Green called it until recently) appear to be the same species.  This species doesn’t resemble Kloppenburg’s publication description nor its illustrations.


Hoya cardiophylla. Ted’s is not that species. I know, because I took photomicroscopic pictures of its flower parts and compared them with photomicroscopic pictures I made of the flower parts on the type specimen.  They are not at all alike.


Hoya chunii – if truly that species, the name should be Hoya chuniana.  The ii ending is for the collector of the holotype specimen. The ending “-iana” is used to honor a person other than the collector of the type specimen.  The “-ii” ending given it by P.T. Li is considered an “orthographic” error.  The code says that orthographic errors are automatically corrected.  So—the name should be Hoya chuniana.”


Hoya fischeriana is not that species.  What he pictured here is  Hoya camphorifolia. 


Hoya fitchii:  He said, “This was previously Hoya cagayanensis.”  It was no such thing.  It was only previously sold by him mislabeled as Hoya cagayanensis.  Okay! So I am picky. I am also convinced that the name fitchii will be sunk before long.  I’m working on it. Keep tuned in.


 Hoya flavescens (354233).  I believe this is incorrect.  I believe it is not USDA-354233.    I got USDA-354233 from USDA’s greenhouse in Silver Springs, MD.  I am certain that it is Hoya kenejiana. The problem here is that Mr. Green, when he saw USDA-354233 at David Silverman’s place in Ohio, he identified it as being the same species as one he already had, which he called “sp. Moir.”  In those days, we had been led to believe that Mr. Green was a true Hoya Authority so we changed our labels to read what he said it was.  Some plants were sold with his label.  A few weeks later, I visited the USDA greenhouse in Silver Springs, MD and bought a USDA-354233 from them.  It was  the same species that Mr. Green had misidentified for David Silverman as his “sp. Moir.”  It was not the same species Mr. Green had sold me with that label.  Later on, I visited Cobia in Florida, who had all the USDA Hoyas.  Cobia’s USDA-354233 was exactly the same as the one I got from USDA in Maryland.  Unfortunately, I had sold one of Mr. Green’s misidentified ones to David Cumming and he’d passed it along to David Liddle so now, everybody and everybody’s brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins own a plant that is mislabeled USDA-354233 and they think it is something it is not!


Hoya imperialis var. rauschii.  Mr. Green said, “Flowers much as the type except color is maroon,” etc.”  The fact is that Hoya imperialis var. rauschii differs from the type in having much paler coloured flowers (but not maroon) and also in having wavy edged leaves, instead of flat or slightly recurved leaf edges as Hoya imperialis var. imperialis has. Hoya imperialis var. rauschii is well illustrated.  He ought to know better.  Here is a copy of it: 



Compare that with the following, which is a picture of Hoya imperialis var. imperialis:



Hoya imperialis var. imperialis

The above picture accompanied the name publication in The Botanical Register in 1846.  It was too large for a single page.  If you look closely you can see where the larger size paper was folded.  This picture was repeated in 1848 in both Curtis’ Botanical Magazine and in Flore des Serres.


Hoya latifolia.  What this man sells as Hoya latifolia NOT Hoya latifolia.  David Liddle conducted an in depth study or this and similar hoyas.  In  a letter to me back on October 22, 2005.  He said, “I am sure that the one Ted Green and his buddies sell as Hoya latifolia (and the one pictured by R. Rintz as Hoya latifolia) is actually Hoya macrophylla.”   

 For crying out loud, the author of Hoya latifolia (George Don) left a good type specimen and on it he attached an actual flower and he also attached a sketch of a flower and its parts.  He made one mistake.  In addition to that one flower he also attached a single corona lobe that belonged to another species.  That lobe appears to me to belong to an Eriostemma.  It certainly doesn’t belong to the flower in the drawing.  I believe that the hoya Mr. Green calls Hoya loyceandrewsiana is Hoya latifolia.  It’s flowers certainly look like George Don’s and they are the right size, which is at least two or three times larger than those of Ted Green’s phony Hoya latifolia.   

I haven’t seen flowers of the one Mr. Green calls the “Gaudy Giant” but my guess is that if the one he calls Hoya loyceandrewsiana turns out not to be Hoya latifolia that the “Gaudy Giant” should be compared to the Hoya latifolia type specimen.  

I feel sure that Mr. Green has misidentified Hoya macrophylla as Hoya latifolia because Hoya latifolia  was previously published as Hoya macrophylla by Robert Wight, who obviously was unaware or Blume’s previous publication of another species with that name. Communication wasn’t instant in those days as it is today.  George Don came upon Wight’s publication and was aware of Blume’s previous publication of the name, so he “sunk” Wight’s species and gave it the new name of Hoya latifolia.  Anyone who has seen both type specimens or pictures of both type specimens, should know that they are not the same species.


Hoya lazaroi  -- At last I have finally found something Mr. Green and I agree on.  I find that kind of scary!  But, hey, they say a stopped clock is right twice a day.  This is definitely Hoya lobbii.  I find it sad that when people are honored by having something named for them that it immediately becomes necessary to sink their names into synonymy.  Incidentally, Mr. Kloppenburg said that this is a Philippine native.  I am sure he was wrong.  This is IML-1524.   David Liddle obtained this from the Chatuchak Markets in Thailand, per his last distributed Accession Catalog.   



Above: Hoya lobbii Hook. f. (syn. Hoya lazaroi Kloppenb. et Siar.)

IML-1524. Photo by Christine M. Burton.


Hoya longifolia shepherdii.  Friends, there are two species.  One is Hoya longifolia.  The other is Hoya shepherdii.  They aren’t at all alike.  One is NOT a variety or a subspecies of the other.


Hoya megalantha: He pictures what look to me like two different species and says they are the same.  It doesn’t wash!


Hoya meliflua var. fraterna:  It is my opinion that this = Hoya treubiana Schltr.  Schlechter left us an excellent type specimen and drawings of the flower parts.  When you look at Schlechter’s flowers and compare them with the drawings and then compare the drawings with the living flowers, they don’t appear to be a match.  You must take into consideration that Schlechter split the coronas into segments before he made his drawings and he was working with dried flowers.  The corona sits on a fairly high stem (I think this is what Kloppenburg refers to as a “skirt” in his publications).  It is just ring of corona flesh holding the corona slightly above the surface  of the corolla.  When you look straight down on the corona while it is still attached to the flower, the corona lobes appear rounded at their outer ends.  When you separate the corona lobes, each of them tilts down at the outer apex because that little piece of  corona stem holds the inner apex higher.  The outer apex, which on an unseparated corona appears almost round, when viewed from above, when separated, appears to have an almost apiculate outer apex, when viewed from above, especially when the flowers are dried, as Hoya treubiana was when Schlechter examined and “drew it up.”  This and the identical foliage, plus the native habitat convinces me that this hoya is Hoya treubiana Schltr.  This species was found in Sabah, not the Philippines where Hoya meliflua  is native.


Hoya meredithii = Hoya vitellinoides.  The holotype specimen appears to be lost or misplaced.  I found an Isotype of this in the Bogor, Indonesia herbarium collection, which the late Douglas H. Kent and I designated as Lectotype.

Definitions:  An Isotype is a part of the original collection.  It is taken from the same plant as the Holotype, at the same time.  The only difference is that the Holotype and Isotype are  mounted on two difference sheets of paper and most often deposited in different herbaria.  A Lectotype is a specimen that was selected from among the Isotype specimens to substitute for a Holotype when the Holotype is missing and presumed destroyed.  Yes, I know that Mr. Kloppenburg defined an Isotype specimen (in Fraterna or one of his books) as a specimen collected at the original collection site at a later date and only assumed to be from the same plant.  Mr. Kloppenburg is mistaken.  If you doubt me,  I suggest you go to a botanical library and find a copy of  An Annotated Glossary of Botanical Nomenclature, Regnum Vegetabile , Vol. 56.  You’ll find the correct definition on page 16.


Hoya cv. Minibelle is not, as he says a cross between Hoya carnosa and Hoya longifolia.  It is Hoya carnosa x Hoya shepherdii.


Hoya oblanceolata: He says Hoya stoneae is a synonym.  My opinion is that Hoya stoneae is a synonym but not of Hoya oblanceolata.  It is a synonym of a varietas of Hoya longifolia.  The Liddles sell this one as Hoya longifolia pubescent form.  The leaves are covered with very short hairs.  If you’ll take a look at the Hoya oblanceolata name publication you’ll see that it has completely glabrous leaves.


Hoya odorata:  this is Hoya cembra.  Hoya odorata doesn’t appear to be in anyone’s collection.  I suspect it may be extinct.  I have seen and examined Schlechter’s Hoya odorata Holotype specimen with his flower part drawings attached.  This is not at all like Hoya odorata. Both flowers and leaves are different.


Hoya pallilimba: He asked if this is the long lost Hoya halophila. Hoya halophila is a Papua New Guinea species.  It also appears in the Solomon Islands. While it is possible that it could also grow in Sulawesi, where Hoya pallilimba is native, it isn’t very likely and, furthermore, Schlechter and the authors of Hoya pallilimba (van Donkelaar, & Kleijn) illustrated these two species quite well.  Their illustrations aren’t at all alike.


Hoya paziae = cv. Iris Marie. I have yet to see one that matches Schlechter’s illustration on his unpublished Hoya eugenioides which Kloppenburg cited as holotype of the name Hoya paziae so that anyone seeing that specimen and not knowing about the Hoya paziae  publication is likely, one of these days to publish it again and create still more confusion. It is my very biased opinion that when naming a new species the name given it should match the name on the holotype specimen, when possible.


Hoya pimenteliana: This is Hoya cagayanensis.


Hoya plicata:  Mr. Green said, “Rintz says that this is a syn. with revoluta but I don’t agree.”  FACT:  Rintz never said that.  What Rintz said was,  Hoya micrantha = Hoya plicata.”  Whether he was right or wrong, at this time, I don’t know.   This is found in The Malayan Nature Journal vol. 30(3/4) on pages 486 & 487, September 1978.  Here’s a copy:

NOTE: The words = Hoya plicata begins the 3rd line of the text in Rintz’s description of Hoya micrantha Hook. f.


The following is Rintz’s description of Hoya revoluta Wight.  I don’t see any reference to Hoya plicata anywhere in it.  Do you?

I believe I have covered Hoya plicata in a previous issue.  David Liddle also sent me a copy of a manuscript that he was planning to publish which covered Hoyas micrantha, plicata and revoluta.  I came across it the other day and wrote to Iris and urged her to see that it got published.  She said that she would send it to Paul Forster and let him handle it.  What was said in there and what Iris repeated to me was that, “No, David did not consider IML-557 or the Rundum species to be Hoya plicata.  I am convinced that he was right.


            Hoya pseudo-littoralis:  This should not be hyphenated and it is a synonym for Hoya anulata.


            …………………………. To be continued in the next issue.




Hoya minahassae Schltr.


Many of you think you have this species but you don’t.  You may have purchased one from one of the following sources:


Liddle Nursery in Mareeba, Qlds., Australia, as Hoya minahassae (IML-1863).  This is NOT Hoya minahassae.


Paul Shirley of the Netherlands, as GPS-8875 or GPS-8816.  It is NOT Hoya minahassae.


Van Donkelaar of the Netherlands as IPPS-8875 or IPPS-8816.  It is NOT Hoya minahassae.



You may have seen Kleijn and van Donkelaar’s publication, Taxonomy and Ecology of the Genus Hoya in Blumea 46(3):2001 with your plant plainly illustrated so you think your plant has to be Hoya minahassae. The only things proved here are that Kleijn and van Donkelaar hadn’t done their homework and the editor of Blumea hadn’t either.

Schlechter’s holotype specimen is extant and in excellent condition.  I have seen it.  I had it here at Fernbank for 3 months and viewed it and all of its flower parts under the lens of a high powered microscope.  Besides that, Schlechter drew pictures of all the flower parts and pasted the pictures on his holotype specimen.

If you’d like to see an excellent, well illustrated article comparing this hoya with the true Hoya minahassae, you can find one in the Swedish publication, Hoyatelegrafen, #3 (2008).  The text is written in Swedish but you don’t need to read the text to know what is said.  The illustrations speak for themselves. They prove that not one single part of the plant, GPS/IPPS-8875, GPS/IPPS-8816 and IML-1863, matches.  These numbers do NOT represent Hoya minahassae.   What is it?  I’m sorry, I don’t know, yet.  Please keep the IML-number on your plant, until someone learns what it is.






Above:  A small starter plant of Hoya kastbergii Kloppenb.


Anyone who has a copy or has seen a copy of Mr. Kloppenburg’s publication of this species will likely think that they have been sold the wrong plant if they believe that the plant published by Mr. Kloppenburg should match his description.  Mr. Kloppenburg made a point of saying that the sap of Hoya kastbergii is clear, like that of Hoya carnosa. He also said that it “grows like H. carnosa R. Br.”  Friends, that is just more “Kloppenburgese” talk.  Note my picture with the  red circle in the center.  See that white dot in the center of the circle.  That is where I pinched off a leaf to see if the sap was clear.  That white dot is a drop of Hoya kastbergii sap.  As for this species growing like Hoya carnosa --  That is still more “Kloppenburgese” talk.  Hoya carnosa is a very rampant grower.  A small Hoya carnosa cutting will grow to fill a 8 inch basket in a couple of years. The pictured Hoya kastbergii  is at least 5 years old and I’ve taken only one cutting off of it.  That cutting is about the same size.  The two rooted cuttings I have would not fill the smallest basket I have seen.



Correction of One of my Past Errors


In Vol. 10, #2, I goofed up.  On page 6, while discussing Hoya pubifera, I listed two reasons I know that the hoya making the rounds as Hoya pubifera and Hoya aff. pubifera are not that species.   Under “2).”  I wrote that Elmer’s designated type was completely bald.  It isn’t.  I meant to say,  2). Elmer’s specimen is not at all like IML-1282 and IML-1301, which are completely bald.”  The rest of that statement under “2)” is correct.  If Hoya pubifera is ever proved to be a hoya and if it is ever validly published, it will be found to be covered with hairs.



Correction of Wannabe’s False Statement


Someone (I won’t say who) sent me a copy of the following remark, posted on one of the forums.  It was said to have been written by a female (the one I call “Wannabe Hoya Authority”).  It reads, thus, “When Mrs. Burton states Hoya diptera and H. vanuatuensis are the same, she is making the same error she accuses others of making in publishing hoyas.  Ted Green published H. vanuatuensis and as far as I know it has been accepted as that hoya… accepted by his peers (except Mrs. Burton).  Because Mrs. Burton doesn’t think it is that hoya.. she should preface her statement that it is in HER opinion.”

I resent being included among his peers because I have enough pride to think I stand far above that status!!!!!!!!!!  You and others may disagree.  That is your priviledge  I agree with Brother Dave.  Women are smarter than men. Proof is that we have always had what men are merely seeking,  In my opinion, Ms. Wannabe is the exception that proves the rule!

Friends, Romans and countrymen, as far as I know, I have NEVER said that Hoya diptera  and Hoya vanuatuensis are the same species.    I think Wannabe needs to take a remedial reading course. I did say that one pictured  in one of her friend’s on-line catalogs as Hoya vanuatuensis was actually Hoya diptera or that the one pictured as Hoya diptera was actually Hoya vanuatuensis.  That is definitely NOT saying that the two are the same species, though I suspect that a degreed taxonomist might lump them.  Stranger things have happened.

If Ms. Wannabe (and her disciples) would take a look at PS-TheHoyan, vol. 10, #2 and vol. 11, #1 and re-read my comments on those pages, they ought to be able to see that what I said was that Ted Green previously sold the hoya that he now calls Hoya vanuatuensis mislabeled as Hoya chlorantha.  I added that later on he started calling it Hoya diptera.   In fact, he made the false statement in his on-line catalog that he had “always” thought it was Hoya diptera until he learned better and that was when he published it as Hoya vanuatuensis.  Well, he had not “always” thought it was Hoya diptera.  At some point he thought is was Hoya chlorantha and sold it to a lot of us as that species. When we, who knew better, complained his reply was that he knew it wasn’t that but, “I had to call it something!”  And I repeat.  He said it in writing and I kept the letter.

Please, tell me, does that say that I claim those two species to be the same?  If so, I’ll take a remedial reading course.  Meantime, I’d like to suggest that Ms. Wannabe, quote publication title, volume number and page number whenever she attempts to quote anyone (including herself) when she makes such accusations.  If she can cite a place where I made that erroneous statement, I’ll be happy to go back and make the necessary correction. As far as I know at this time, Hoya vanuatuensis is the correct name for the species in question and it is NOT Hoya diptera,  however, I would not be at all surprised to learn that  it is some other previously published species because my opinion is that those pretend in public friends (Green and Kloppenburg) appear to think that anything they never saw before is, ipso facto, a new unpublished Hoya species and they are bound and determined to make names for themselves, in the worst way! (And that’s exactly how they are doing it)!   That is just my opinion. I respect others’ right to disagree with me.

I would truly love to belong to a Hoya discussion group but Wannabe joins everything I have ever joined or tried to join and she has managed to get me and anyone else who knows more about hoyas than she does booted from the forums.  The only thing any of us (except for one person) have ever been guilty of was correcting a false statement she made about a hoya.  Granted, she is a quick learner but no one becomes an instant authority, as that woman appears to me would like to have others think she is.

Gerrald’s Law: “A little ignorance can go a long way!”   Wannabe’s Law, as I see it: “What really matters is the name you succeed in imposing on the facts, not the facts themselves.”

Let me  paraphrase a quote someone wrote at the end of an e-mail several years ago:  “Some people are like a Slinky… not really good for anything but you couldn’t help but smile if someone shoved them down the stairs.”

So, I’m too wordy?  I get that way when I’m ticked off! 


P.S.  I just checked out Wannabe’s Hoya buddy, SRQ’s Hoya web site.  This web site pictures a plant, labeled, Hoya vanuatuensis (SRQ-3136).  This must be what Wannabe was referring to.  I did say before and I will say again and again and again, …. and however many times it takes.  The plant pictured there as Hoya vanuatuensis   IS Hoya diptera Seem.   I’d post a picture of Hoya vanuatuensis here but the only one I have is one given me for use in The Hoyan by Mr. Green.  I don’t think he’d take kindly to my appropriating his picture. The flowers in his photograph are completely white and the leaves, unlike those of Hoya diptera appear, in the living state to be completely veinless.



Please Join the Swedish Hoya Society

In 2012, there will be an English Language  Version.


Here is where you can find the details.


For those who have written to me and asked the price of membership and if they take PayPal, here is the reply I got when I asked Torill Nyhuus:


We accept PayPal.  This information is on our website.  The cost in USD will be floating as exchange rate will go up and down now and then, so they will pay to PayPal in SEK (Swedish Crown) in January next year and PayPal will tell the exchange in USD.

With the rate today to buy 320 SEK is about 48 USD, but hopefully it will not change too much until next year.  If the USD gets stronger, it will be less.