Anybody here know what the difference between H. motoskei and H. carnosa is?
H. motoskei - H. carnosa, what's the diff.?
Baa
Aug 24, 2003
According to IPNI H. motoskei is a synonym of H. carnosa so there should be no differences. However, I have read that some growers consider H. motoskei a plant that is similar but has differences to H. carnosa. The only thing I can think of in that case is that the plant may be misnamed or if they aren't misnamed, what was once known as H. motoskei should really be listed as a subspecies.
I'll need to look it up again, I think I read that H. motoskei is the wild form, or the 1st orginal form found, later they found more H.carnosa on different island/locations, they are still H. carnosa, but the first was H.motoskei I'll go back and read that again, if I can find what book it's in. I'm sure I'm not explaining this correctly. Plants go from one extrene or another, they are the same species. LIke me I'm human and female, there are other humans and female, but one is tall, I'm very short, we may both have red hair, and we may even be related, but she came from China and I came from Germany, we are still memebers of the same family of humans. Some are fat, I'm skinny. Even our last name can be the same.
I tried. Norma
Yes Norma, They say that moteskei is the original carnosa. The leaves are shaped much different than what we think of as carnosa.
Patricia
H. motoskei - only to confuse the issue further - is sometimes called H. carnosa cv. Latifolia...and some nurseries even sell it labeled H. latifolia. Gotta watch'em!
Patricia, it that is true, and I believe it is the orginial, then carnosa would then be the subspecies or synonym? I think I have it explained in a book, when I run across it again I will print it out and send it to you.
Well, I found some information in The Hoyan, Vol. 4, page 87. The picture on the cover of this Issue (#4) is of Schollia crassifolia Jacquin "(The true Hoya carnosa R. Brown, syn. Hoya motoskei Teysm. &Binn.)"
I quote from the article following: "This species is the true H. carnosa R. Brown but is known by most of us as H. motoskei. This species was also featured in 1804 in Curtis's Botanical Magazine under the name of Asclepias carnosa Linn.f.;....Although this is not the same plant that we know as H. carnosa, it is the true one, i.e. "the type' for the species and also "the type" for the section Eu-Hoya."
This is all terribly technical for me...but what I understand it to mean is that before The Code (a standard by which all plants are named, with very strict rules and guidelines), many hoyas were named as other genera, not Hoya. Many of the names we use to day, published in accordance with The Code, relate back to those older names. With The Code, there is always a designation "type"...(the primo example of what the species IS) as there is a "type" for the section of Hoya it belongs to...Eu-Hoya, Eriostemma etc.).
I'm not going to worry about it and call H. motoskei by the name H. motoskei and H. carnosa by its' name...
I have trouble enough remembering my own name! LOL
Yeaaaaaa Carol good for you, that is exactly what I'm going to do. If that name was first recorded, then I will use it.
If it is the selected for the type, that's good enough for me. I will still consider H. carnosa a syn. if they are not two entirely different species. Now does this sound correct? I havent' read Vol 4 yet but will do so and see if I get the same meaning.? Usually the oldest written name is considered correct. Everything that comes later is a synonym. Norma
I am not sure if H. carnosa should be considered a syn. (can't be sure of the whole spelling LOL) as this whole thing happened BEFORE The Code. I think that their actual publications are valid as they are...even tho they are related and perhaps, if published today, would have a different status of syn., ssp. etc. My impression is that H. motoskei and H. carnosa each are validly published.
Whole thing wreaks of a southern novel...babies with wrong names, related but different mothers and fathers...Yikes!
What ever you want to call it, it's certainly okay for me. It is a wildly accapted name, and Chris is right now to change them. We have several Crassula, that have that problem.
I accept 'Jade' I just never know which one, but I don't correct them, because most people don't know that there are more than one form. So it's okay, if I ever sold plants I still would call it H. carnosa and name the variety. 'Snow Ball' etc. Okay will that work?
For me it would be H. carnosa 'Snow Ball' ex Bill Baker' Norma
Right.
I just found this post by Chris Burton on the msn forum relating to this very question... And it contains more information about the H. carnosas and H. pubicalyx:
It has been proven that the plant we know as Hoya motoskei has a different chemical makeup than the one we know as Hoya carnosa, if we are to believe the terpene studies done by Drs. Neimann and Baas of Utrecht U. in the 1970s and 1980s. It is also easily proven that the hoya that was first given the name of Hoya carnosa was the one we know as Hoya motoskei.
In the Hoyan on a number of occasions I showed illustrations showing the difference between the flowers of Hoya carnosa and the one we know as Hoya motoskei and Hoya publicalyx. The former has an upright corona (high in center, low on the outside. The lobes beneath are rather flat. The entire lower surface comes into contact with the corolla.
The coronas of Hoya publicalyx and Hoya fungii are more or less flat on top and beneath the lobes are rather thick on their inner halves and thin on their outer halve (they jut outward like a porch roof with only the inner halves in close contact with the corolla).
The difference I've seen between Hoya pubicalyx flowers and Hoya fungii flowers is that the corona lobes of the latter are shorter and broader.
Foliage of the two differ greatly. And, the foliage of the type specimen of Hoya fungii differs greatly in shape from paratype specimens cited by the authors of the species.
I see nothing wrong with calling these hoyas by the names of Hoya carnosa, publicalyx, motoskei and fungii because I think consumers need to know what to expect when placing orders. I do think, however, that a publication that toots itself as a scientific publication and an author who calls himself a scientist ought to use correct nomenclature or to at least explain to his readers what the true situation is.
Since the Code now allows conservation of species names, it would help all if, instead of constantly republishing old species with new names, that some of these anxious to make a name for themselves authors would instigate a process to conserve the names Hoya carnosa and Hoya motoskei for the plants the world seems to have adopted. I'm afraid it might not work however with Hoya carnosa since it is the "type" of the genus
I thought you said and Christine Burton said " H. motoskei is the type species. If that is so, then it was the first name given and should be upheld. According to noninclature rules?
Any way that is the way other species work, find out it they made special rules for this species, it is as old as the others.
Why are we mixing in the apples, oranges, and peaches.
(H.Pubicayx, H. fungii, H. Carnosa,) please explain, then if what Cris is saying is true, these would be synonyms with H. Motoskei.
I understand there must be 5 points of difference for them to be a different species. Is this correct?
Anyway it sure seems backwards to me.
H. motoskei is the "type" for the species and for the section of Eu-Hoya...but H. motoskei was the name given to the first H. carnosa...which was then changed...who's on first?
H. carnosa is considered the "type" for the genus Hoya...
My small brain understands all this to mean, Norma, that there was a confusion way back before we were here...and before the Code...and that now "common practice" is so engrained as to the names, they should be accepted.
There IS a connection between H. carnosa, H. pubicalyx, H. fungii...H. fungii is also called H. carnosa from Vietnam...and it was published as H. fungii for a man from China named Mr. Fung. H. pubicalyx is so close to H. carnosa in so many things, but different enough, accepted by its own name. Besides there are SO many cultivars, ssp., clones, etc. in both species...imagaine trying to straighten all that out. NOT ME!
I didn't know there was any set rule as to how many differences there HAVE to be to differentiate one species from another...but I know that if there are only 2 differences are present, but the difference is in the pollinium and the, say, calyx, it might be enough to assure a separate species. But if it is just in color or shade or "not as broad as"...different story.
I certainly agree with your above statement, but was carnosa the fist to be named, and then the scientist selected motoskei right in the middle of the complex so made it the type? Norma Well back to the drawing board. I will ask the taxonomist at the Huntington.
Okay another difficult choice to make. What about H. burtonii is it the same as H. tsangii, if so I will get rid of my extra plants. I find that H. burtonii has stiffer leaves? What do you say here.
Norma...I am starting another thread...
Hi friends, I just looked up the date that H. motoskei Teijsmann & Binnendijk 1855 and after that it says incl. Hoya carnosda var. japonica Siebold ex Maximowicz 1870
So if the noninclature rules hold up, H. carnosa is indeed a synon. I didn't ask this question Panamon Creel did. I still want to check it out elsewhere. I think Carnosa is the accepted name world wide. So the name stands.
This book also list several other syn. names.
How ever no listing in this book other an Hoya carnosa (Linne fil.) R. Brown (Prodr., 459 1810) is presented. No Motoskei listed here.
If you want all the incl. listed I will do that as well. It also shows I: Eggli (1994 : 1960)
Norma
I am still not changing any names, I still enjoy the flowers, I can't list all the syn, they list in the books, and I can't follow all the arguments pro and con. I need a translator. I'll read it again, darn this is difficult, and I going to read your post over again. Norma
Carmosa Brown, 1810 the name stands. It was first. Norma
Just moving this back to the top of the threads because I think it is so important.
Ann
My motoskei and my carnosa often bloom at the same time, but I never thought to compare them until about a month ago.
Carnosa to the left and motoskei to the right. (Should add that I bought my motoskei as a NOID.)
Christina
I know there is really no such thing as a "typical" leaf of any species, or even of a particular plant, but here are two "typical" leaves of my H. motoskei and H. carnosa (carnosa is in my fingers). BTW, I have heard it said that since the plant we know as motoskei actually matches the specimen type of carnosa, that the plant we know as carnosa may actually be an unpublished species and technically have no name! However, carnosa and motoskei it is for all practical purposes.
Thanks for those photos Christina and Mark!!
Those comparison shots help a lot.
Ann
Great thread. I think a noid I have is H. motoskei, I received it as IML ??? Can't remember off the top of my head, but that IML # is an australis ssp.australis. Mark do your new leaves have a reddish tint to them?
Tami, no, the splotches turn pink in bright light, but the new leaves are green. Could be a diference in light levels though, so don't rely on that.