Norma...does your plant have rather roundish stiff leaves, tri-nerved with dark margins on a lightish green? Hmmmm does it look like this?
So that this is not misunderstood, this picture is NOT H. diversifolia B. There is no such hoya. I am told this hoya is H. latifolia. I am editing this because the subject line and the picture do not go together!
This message was edited Aug 19, 2004 9:36 AM
Nope, no margins, and these leaves are wavy, they have spots, not tri-nerved. Is there a H. loyceandrewsiana? Could this be it. The nerves coming off the nerve (spine) has three main set of nerves, with three more branches of nerves coming off them on the ends. It has a very thick stem and thicker vines. What other information may I give you. The nerve is blood red on the back side at the beginning of that spine going down the middle. The tip is extrememly small give the leaf a rounded appearance. They are a dark forest green. By the way what can I use to clean the leaves? How about milk?
I just measured the leaf 5.5 across at least 7" long, not inculding the leaf stem, that joins the vine. This thing is jumbo. This is one of which I sent you. Norma
I forgot these leaves are much lighter on the back side. Any idea where I can look this up , I have both Christines Hoyan and Dale Kloppenburgs books and Fraterna journals. Where do I go? The Hoyan 1-16 Thanks for the help. Norma
Carol, I did find a drawing in the Hoyan page 13 Volumn 4 Issue #1 but my leaves are rounder from the tip down, it does not indent. It is labeled sp. HSI #CI-4 this ia huge thick vine. This one came from the 1st batch of Seymour Linden plants that I sent to all, two years ago this month. Round off the leaf at the top then add the tip to the drawing. No mention is made of the ruby red/blood red color of the spine on the back side. Now I don't know where else to look, any suggestions. Thanks, Norma
I found it, I found it. Loyceandrewsiana It's a whopper like the Carl's Jr. Whoopers
Thanks Carol. Norma
Norma - FYI - "tri nerved" means that there are 3 main sets of nerves.
The picture I posted was ID'd as follows by Chris Burton. " believe that TG's Diversifolia-B, aka Div.-B, aka Hoya loyceandrewsiana IS Hoya latifolia."
So...it seems that you got another mislabeling...OR... you are growing this in a darker environment than I do so the dark margin does not show up. The leaf in the picture has red where the petiole (leaf stem) joins the leaf. The leaf in the picture also has a lot of splotches.
The hoya you sent to me, Norma, is H. vitellina. It was labeled H. fusco-marginata when you sent it but that is a syn. for H. vitellina.
H. loyceandrewsiana is a wrong name given to H. latifolia when Ted Green (TG) ran out of other names to call it.
If you lay your leaf upon a sheet of white paper, the darker margins may show up.
I used to hear about milk being used to clean leaves...and I have no idea why. Anything but water will clog the leaves' system-like using oil. If you have calcium (salt) deposits on the leaves, cocacola is good and so is a bit of vinegar in water. If you have algae...the same bit of vinegar in water works great.
OH...re: my post above. It seems that Green already had a hoya he called H. latifolia and that's why he couldn't call it by that name...so he named it H. diversifolia B (because he already had a H. diversifolia)...at least this is what I have been told.
Here is the quote from Chris Burton about H. latifolia (syn. H. diversifoliaB):
"The history of ted's plant is that it was first sold in US trade by Ms. Loyce Andrews, mislabeled as Hoya diversifolia (a radically different species). At the same time ted green was selling Hoya australis subsp. tenuipes mislabeled as Hoya diversifolia (and he was selling Hoya diversifolia as Hoya globulosa, H. sp. sonalka, H. sp. Thailand and several other names). When he obtained the huge trinerved species with dinner plate sized leaves from Loyce Andrews, he couldn't sell it as Hoya diversifolia because he already was selling Hoya australis subsp. tenuipes as Hoya diversifolia so he sold it first as Hoya diversifolia-B and later (for many years) as Hoya Div-B.
He couldn't call it Hoya latifolia because he was selling Hoya polystachya mislabeled as Hoya latifolia so, not knowing that Loyce Andrews had written a number of her customers vicious letters telling them what a cheating scoundrel he was (she sent one of them to me., he decided that he had a new species and published it, naming it for Loyce Andrews.
If the picture in that album is the same species, my opinionated opinion is that it is Hoya latifolia --- Only hoya I've ever seen that fits Wight's and George Don's descriptions. The flowers also fit the drawings of the flowers Wight attached to the type specimen and one of the attached flowers. One flower on the type specimen appears to belong to another species --- it is only a corona pasted beneath a full flower. That corona appears to belong to an Eriostemma that fell off another specimen and got accidentally pasted on the specimen."
I appreciate all of your help, at least now we will have something to go on. I'll start researching now.
Thanks, Norma
Carol, I think the best description of the leaves would be like a Lily Pad. I know why he had to rename it, it doesn't match the description and didn't know what it was. His name makes more sense to me. I'll wait until John Trager decides what name he will use, at first this plant only had collections # then people got into the act and messed everything up. If the first name was H. latifolia, then why was is changed. It was know as that for at least 100 years. The IPNI Query shows it as H. latifolia G, Don as well as H.latifolia subsp. kinabaluensis C. M. Burton (IK) where she came up with that name beats me, perhaps that is where it was found? Don't ask please. Norma
Okay Carol, I'm asking you. Or any one else on this forum legally.
I have a plant labeled H. diversifolia ssp ef.?. nidicus Palawan, now I know where that is, they leaves are smaller than the other H. diversifolia haven't seen the flowers, 24" of growth. It is labeled as a subspecies, but I wonder. How many subspecies are there in the diversifolia complex? I haven't seen the flowers yet. Norma
Carol, H. latifolia was changed by Blume (1849) to H. polystachya that was the first name change that was accepted and synonmous. My plant does match the description of H. latifolia. more or less.
I think what the book is saying , is saying is that the lower face is deep red. Mine is not that way at all, it probably needs more light. So out it goes with the rest.
Norma...I moved my H. "whatevertheheckitis" out of the high light to a lower light (more shade)...red margins went away, the green got greener and not so yellow/pale, and the leaf is not as lacunose...it is smoother...more speckles. Thought I would let you know.
When I visited Kartuz's nursery in Vista in the summer, I saw the biggest leaves on a hoya that I had ever seen. They were the size of dinner plates and very round. I didn't see any margins or color on them at all and didn't notice any very distinct veins. When I asked him what this huge thing was, he said it was H. diversifolia. I guess he could be wrong like the rest of us, but just thought I would add what I was told down there to this thread.
Marcy
Marcy this is the plant H. latifolia, names were coming off the wall, I think the problem being the Latifolia B was a clone designation. or varieation or location varieation. Until it was named. Many of plants just have # not initials, so that does not surprise me at all. John Trager gave it the designation that he wanted from the New Asdclerpiadaceae Illutreated Handbook of succulent plants. It was name by Dale Kloppenburg not Ted Green. Christine Burton also tagged a name onto the plant, these are syn. names and accepted. The difference being the flowers, locations where found. Kartuz has one of the fnest reputations of being a fine grower, and very ethical. But he doesn't claim to be the authority.
He does not brag, I think the plants speak for him. He will not correct a name that has been put on a plant by someone else even if it has changed after 30 or more years. He is not a Johny come lately. Norma We also label our clones A B C D E F ......................................................................................and when we run out of letters they become A-l A-2 A-3 etc. Norma
Norma, is this the plant that is also being called diversifolia B and latifolia? Or is there an actual name for this one? I have been looking everywhere to find one of these, but have had no success!! I have the latifolia that Carol posted a picture of in the beginning of this thread, but can't find any info in this plant....
HI all...David Liddle and I sat up until 1a.m. discussing this, looking at pictures, plants etc...so I hope that in a week I will have more of an idea. I know This picture, Raven, is NOT H. latifolia... description of flowers does not even come close....hope to know more soon...but I htink I DO know already....
Having a hoya of a great time, here.
Carol
Carol is wrong! raven_locks' picture is as near a perfect match to Wight's type as I have seen yet. If David Liddle disagrees with me, it is obvious that he has not seen Wight's type.
Carol is also wrong in stating that the flowers of this one do not fit the description. Whose description? Certainly not Wight's or George Don's as neither of them described the flowers. Wight did glue on two flowers to his specimen and he also drew some pictures. The floowers of this species, which TG says is H. loyceandrewsiana, matches those as near perfectly as any I've seen. They certainly are nothing like those on the plant TG and others are selling mislabeled as Hoya latifolia.
To Norma, Blume DID NOTchange anything to the name H. latifolia in 1849, as you claim, nor in any other year. I doubt Blume ever heard the name Hoya latifolia. If your plant does not match the description of Hoya latifolia, then you don't have the original description. It makes a difference whose description you are reading. It was first described in Latin in 1834 by Robert Wight who called it "Hoya macrophylla Wight." George Don came along in 1837 and recognized it as being a hoya with a name that was already in use by an entirely different species so he republished it as "Hoya latifolia G. Don."
What Blume did was publish the name Hoya macrophylla in 1826. In 1849, he published another name, Hoya polystachya. They are very similar.
The confusion that most people have with this is in thinking that because Wight named it Hoya macrophylla that it is the same species that Blume named Hoya macrophylla in 1826. It most definitely is NOT the same. It has larger leaves and its flowers are at least three times larger.
To David Liddle: when I get the hang of the new scanner (the replacement of the one sacrificed to Ivan), I'll send you pictures of Wight's specimen. It even has, written on it in Wight's handwriting (or so I was told by Douglas Kent) the same words Wight wrote in his publication.
Also to Norma. Re you question as to who gave Chris Burton the authority to publish a hoya name --- If you knew your subject as well as you talk it you'd know that anyone can publish a plant name, at any time, provided one publishes it in the manner prescribed by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
Norma, I (and most consumers and even taxonomists, as especially the authorities) consider it very unethical for someone to retain a wrong name on a plant 30 or more years after a plant has been correctly identified. If Kartuz does that, he cannot be considered ethical but more than that, taking one's money and hanging on to it and never sending the plants or replying to one's letters of inquiry about it is even more unethical. If your saying he is "not a Johny come lately" is implying that I am one, I am sure that I could prove that I was into hoyas and trying to identify them long before he was and certainly longer than your friend Dk and even before your other friend TG.
Let me also add that you are wrong in saying that the difference between syn. names and others is in the flowers. That isn't true. If the flowers are different then you have a different species, not a synonym. A synonym is a surplus name for an identical plant.
Chris
