Another one I got from Norway is H. neoebudica. Looking around I found it named like above neoebudica but also
neoe-budica. Now which one is the correct one.
Another Hoya in the name game
Mine is labeled as H. neo-ebudica. The list I'm following is the IPNI Query results, which can also make typo errors. Norma
Milan...please post on msn and we can get Chris in on this. I would like to know...I "think" it is a syn.
Done and awaiting answer.
I looked it up in The Hoyan, Vol. 9, pp. 49. As of that year, it is a valid publication. From Vanuatu, the Island of Ambrym. Here is a description from the Publication: Climbing, branches warty, elongated, glabrous, leaves 3 to 4 togther, lanceolate (7 - 9 cm. x 3-3.5cm), bases cuneate, apexes acutely acuminate, glabrous, fleshy, 5-pli nerved, petiole 1 to 1.5 cm long. Inflorescences umbellate.....
Sound like your...Oh, and it is H. neo-ebudica, per The Hoyan.
Got my answer and per CB it should be spelled neoebudica since the rule is that when spelling a name that is made up of a word element attached to a word that no hyphen be used.
I must've read that wrong...
No it was my mistake I reaad it wrong, PanamonCreel you are right I put on my glasses and took another look, thank's good catch. Norma
There is a good example how a typo can lead to all kinds of mistakes, misinterrpretations etc. I am sure Chris would have changed that had she found it at the time...it was a long time ago, after all...but you see, if you hadn't posted that I would have chorttled along for the rest of my life mis-spelling it.
Thanks
It was spelled right on my label. I just automatically but the - in the name without thinking. Norma
The problem with the hyphen or not being there depends on when it was put there. When the name was published the hyphen was there but the Code is constantly being updated. A conference convenes every few years --- not sure but I think, every 5 years, at which time new laws are written into it.
I don't recall when the law about omitting the hyphen was passed. It is misunderstood by many too. As the late Hon. Douglas H. Kent explained it to me, when the name has a suffix which is a word element (neo- and psuedo-) there should be no hyphen BUT when the name begins or ends with a stand alone word, as "fusca" (or any word which can be used alone without another word attached to it) then the hyphen is added. You may see the names Hoya purpureo-fusca or Hoya fusco-marginata written without the hyphen. Unless Doug was wrong or unless the law has been further modified, that is wrong because the word fusca is a stand alone word and is often used as such. It means "dark." You say, "It is dark outside," or "That flower is dark purple." On the otherhand, neo- and psuedo- are never used without being attached to another word.
When Guillaumin published Hoya neoebudica, he put a hyphen in it because that was the way things were done then. The law was changed later on, so you may see it written both ways. Without it is correct.
I'm sure that someone will argue with me over this. And the law may have been further amended, for all I know.
Chris Burton