Gabi...I start a new thread so that this information can be easily found and not buried in with the blooms thread. Hope it is OK with you. Maybe you could post the two pictures here, too.
]
In Kloppenbergs' book The World of Hoyas, he explains the differences between two of them. There IS a good discussion of all of them in the paper that Liddle and Forster published... I am running out of time this morning...but this evening I will note down some of the comments describing the growth habits, leaves yetc.
....unless someone else has the paper and would like to do it?
Carol
H. australis - rupicola, orimicola, sanae
I have it Carol. There is more useful info in the paper, of course, but here are the three relevant illustrations of the subspecies we are talking about, and a key to identifying the subspecies which distills the relevant aspects of each group.
This paper, "Variation in Hoya australis R. Br. ex Traill", Forster & Liddle, 1991, is aging but is still the best and most current and comprehensive work done on the australis subspecies. Until something else is attempted, this could be considered the final word.
The illustration for ssp. sanae. This one generally has smaller leaves than the other ssp.s and has a hard, plastic feel to the leaves. It is only moderately succulent. The leaves only tend to curl under at the margins, as shown in the illustration, during the dry season or when grown very dry in cultivation.
This message was edited Nov 13, 2007 1:06 PM
The illustration for ssp. oramicola. The authors said that this subspecies was intermediate between ssp. sanae and ssp. rupicola. It has heavy, succulent leaves and is a vigorous vine. It twines and climbs, and grows into the canopy of trees or shrubs near the ocean where it naturally occurs.
This message was edited Nov 13, 2007 1:04 PM
The illustration for ssp. rupicola. This is one of the few truly succulent Hoyas, along with H. pachyclada and H. subquintuplinervis. The leaves are extremely succulent, being almost 1/4" thick and about 3" x 1". The stems are also thick and succulent, and the flower cluster are usually held facing up- unlike all the other subspecies and most Hoyas. This species makes a stocky, upright bush and does not climb or twine under any circumstances.
This is the key to identifying the subspecies from this paper. "Lamina" is essentially the leaf, "recurved" means the edges of the leaves curl under slightly, "indumentum" is essentially hair.
This message was edited Nov 13, 2007 1:16 PM
And here is the photo again of the real life plants. I received all of these from David Liddle, the author of the above cited paper, excepting ssp. australis.
The plants are:
A- a single leaf of ssp. australis 'Brookfield'
B- ssp. sanae
C- ssp. rupicola
D- ssp. oramicola
Subspecies tenuipes is not shown.
Great information, Mark.
Ok, here are the pics of mine.
This first one was labeled ssp. rupicola, but I really do think it is ssp. sanae - the leaves look like Mark's, and they have a hard plastic feel to them.
And here is a close up of one of the leaves of the above australis - I'm holding it in my fingers for size reference, and as you can see the leaves are very small.
Here is a side view of that same leaf..
Here is the one sold to me as ssp. oramicola (but I think it's ssp. rupicola)
And a close up of one of the leaves from the above australis:
Gabro...only you can make the final decision with all of the information...since you have the leaf, can feel the surface, can judge the margins if they are recurved or VERY recurved. Does your ssp. rupicola have any split leaves like Marks example "C".
No nurseryman is going to admit readily that his plants are mislabeled. Asiatica has enough mislabeling to make me extremely suspect...He probably barely knows a Hoya from a Ginger and is relying on the Thais he is buying his plants from who are not great researchers with an American buyer. I was once sent a "fantastically NEW hybrid that would thrill" me to death because it was so new - and it was one I published as H. cv. Christine about 2 years previously. Hmmmmm.
I see what you're saying about their mislabeling. They gave me a 25$ credit and they are also sending me H. lyi as a "present" - I am very happy about the "gift", but it's funny that he chose that one, because that's the one that was said to have been mislabeled by them! He is trying to do right by be, and he "says" that he will look into whether the hoyas have been mislabeled - we'll see what happens.
He tried to make it seem like he is very knowledgable about hoya taxonomy, but there is NO WAY that the first australis I pictured is H. rupicola! By the way, the leaves don't split like Mark's leaves do, but Mark said that the splitting occurs from overwatering.
Here is the first part of the email I got from Asiatica - he does seem a little defensive (by the way, he mentioned the "forum" part because I said that someone on one of the forums mentioned that their ssp. rupicola might be mislabeled - he didn't seem too thrilled about that):
"First of all, I want you to know that I want you to be happy with your dealings with my nursery, so I will try to work through these issues with you. Questions about identity of hoyas are often not simple. Some general comments: I have considerable taxonomic training, and I take plant id very seriously. I am constantly trying to verify my stock against PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC observations by trained observers. Sometimes I make mistakes and sometimes the published information that I see is wrong, but that is the only reasonable way to do it . When I make an error, I admit it and correct it. I am busily reading everything ever published about hoyas so I am still learning as I go along. Most people who post on the forums don't know what they are talking about, and some of them appear to me to be mentally disturbed. It is a mistake to take their comments seriously UNLESS they can direct you to a professional publication that provides verifiable information. Most people on the forums are simply repeating something they read or heard without verification. The Hoya australis complex is very complicated, and even taxonomists working with those plants constantly disagree. Hoya australis in the broad sense is what taxonomists call a polymorphic species group. The concept of species, subspecies and variety within such a group is not clear-cut. Hobbyists expect each individual within the group to exactly agree with certain characteristics of a species or subspecies, but that does not happen in this case."
Oh well, I'll just have to go with my gut (and the help of certain members) and label the first pic on this post as H. australis ssp. sanae, and the second one as H. australis ssp. rupicola. If anyone else has opinions on what these could be, I'd really appreciate it (yes, I know that leaves are not ways to positively ID a hoya, but I see no problem with an educated guess!).
Gabi
Well, he does have some points about some of the things you hear on forums (of all sorts, not just Hoya specific forums). His comments about species, subspecies and varieties are true enough as well. I'd guess he hasn't read the Forster & Liddle paper, however, as it is pretty clear cut.
Gabi, I'll send you a digital copy which you could forward to him if you want. Grigsby Cactus Garden in CA also sells ssp. rupicola mislabeled as ssp. oramicola (for $10 a plant last I checked), so perhaps many of the current nurseries got their plants from the same source with the same wrong label.
P.S. I believe Asiatica also has the labels reversed for H. pachyclada and H. subquintuplinervis. It's easy to see why, as they are hard to tell apart.
Thanks Mark - I'd appreciate you sending me that paper so that I can send it to him. He's a nice enough guy, and in one of the last emails he wrote, he really did seem like he wanted to get the right labels.
I wonder, after reading his defense, if he has ever 'heard' about David Liddle and Paul Forster....??????
Carol
PS I would trust Mark, who put together a well presented paper on the H. australis AND David Liddle's labeling. Against Asiatica...no contest!!!!!
I just took a look through the Asiatica website- there are a lot of mislabels. The worst is Hoya sigillatis being sold as Hoya lanceolata. Those kenejianas look fishy too, but hard to tell.
Still, I have ordered from them before and they are certainly nicely grown, well rooted plants.
You know, I noticed that about H. lanceloata too! It looks exactly like my H. sigillatis. I would notify him of this, but I'm sure he's quite sick of me already! Maybe someone else will :)
So I sent Barry the paper that you sent me. He quickly read it and said "My first impression is that my plant of ssp. oramicola is correctly named, and that my ssp. rupicola does not agree with any of the ssp. described in the paper. I will let you know more later". So at least he realizes that there is no possible way that the thin leaved one I got (pictured above) is rupicola. I asked him to check the twining habit of his *supposed* oramicola (the light green succulent one pictured above), and told him that if it doesn't twine at all, then it isn't oramicola (from what I understand of oramicola's growth habit). Well, I've done enough -it's in his hands now. Again, thanks for all your help - much appreciated.
Gabi