and not wanting to hijack the thread below---is H. compacta, the "Hindu Rope", an actual species? I mean, does it occur naturally in the wild like that? Or is it a cultivar of H. carnosa? It seems hard to believe those contorted leaves are "natural", but it's always written up as if it's a species...also, H. cv Krinkle 8 is described as a cultivar of H. compacta, NOT H. carnosa...so it would seem that they are two separate and distinct species...anyone know?? Thanks for any input...
Shelley
something I've always wondered...
It is my understanding that all of what you can't believe is correct. It IS H. compacta (a species) and cv. Krinkle 8 is from H. compacta....
So what does just plain old H. compacta look like? Does it look like "Hindu Rope"? You could actually see what looks like a Hindu Rope in the wild? It just seems odd to me....of course I know nothing and it IS confusing....Logees is selling Hoya carnosa "Crispa"cv. Hindu Rope....Anyway, thanks for the response--I appreciate any information like this...:)
Shelley
Hi Shelley,
H. compacta IS "hindu rope". "Hindu Rope" is just the nickname for it. So yes, H. compacta looks like "hindu rope" :)
Also, it is my understanding that not all 500+ hoyas come from the wild. There are published crosses and cultivars and whatnot that are legitimate species - they don't have to have been growing in the wild to be a true species. That's what I thought anyway.
Gabi
Actually, any crosses that happen in the wild (we aren't there when it happens, so we don't know....) are published as species hoyas. Any hoyas that happen in cultivation (cared for by people who 'cultivate' them)...crosses whether wild crosses or purposeful...are cv. (cultivars). It is suspected that some hoyas ARE natural crosses in the wild...but they are still species. There are also sports that happen in the wild...and that is how we get so many different 'clones' of, say, H. acuta or H. plicata - they simple morph a tad to adjust to something. If found in the wild...they are species. Their determinations (labels/names/IDs) are determined by people with impressive degrees who match certain key parts of the flowers etc. (soon to be done by DNA)....
Shelly...most nurseries call many plants by whatever name they think will sell it best!! LOL
Carol
Thanks to both of you guys :)...okay, I think I understand now, and I feel MUCH better :-)...there are actually other garden plants that were originally collected in the wild, designated as species, but now apparently don't exist anywhere except in cultivation...my head is starting to throb slightly now, but I do think I've learned something.. .and it finally makes sense to me...thanks again...
Shelley
Now, wait a minute, If I am not mistaken H. compacta comes in a flat leaved version.
Then there is a cv or fm varigata, and I would call Krinkle 8, Hindu Rope H c fm monstrose, since that is what it appears to be. And I believe that there is a varigated, monstrose form, too.
Monstrose is a word to describe a deformity in a plant that is not on the apical meristem, and alters the look or form of the plant. Monstrose characteristics are commonly cultivated from plants. Many plants have monstrose or crest characteristics in their genes, and that includes many succulent plants.
Now, that's my 2 cents before I inquire about it on Google. Lets see how much mud collects on my face.
Hey Dog,
You blew ME away with that so I can neither argue or throw mud.
Dee
A flat leafed version of H. compacta? Interesting...I have never seen it or heard of it. Will have to research that one.
Monstrose....hmmmmm. Interesting botanical term but I've never hear it used as a descriptor where 'variegated form' is used often. The variegated form is called, I think, H. compacta cv. Moana Loa.
Carol
After hunting around, I found this little ditty:
"Hummel, Ed - noted Carlsbad, California breeder and collector of succulents, many clones bearing his name, especially odd, crested, and variegated plants. He worked mainly n Euphorbia, Echeveria, Aloe, Aechmea, Crassula, Hoya, and Clivia. His most remarkable creation I believe is the HINDU ROPE PLANT or Hoya carnosa 'Compacta', a twisted leaf sport of his cultivar 'Exotica'. It may be the mealy bug's favorite place to hide but it's also one of the most remarkable of durable succulents for indoor gardens. It is seen over the entire world. "
Looking deeper, I found that H. compacta is not considered a legitimate name. It is only used when refering to the H. compacta 'Krinkle Kurl' or similar plants. So the proper name for the plants are H. carnosa 'Compacta' for the twisted leaf, or H. carnosa 'Exotica' for smaller leaf varigated form. There is no H. compacta, but there is H c 'Compacta', and it probably be used as H 'Compacta', which is where the trouble surely lies.
This was all studied by looking at the various sites of USDA Plants, ZipCodeZoo, and several other plant databases. The site "Biographies in Ornamental Horticulture" http://members.tripod.com/~Hatch_L/bioh.html was the source of the quote.
Hmmmmmm. Too much for me....conflicting information from what I understood. If someone wanted to as on the MSN forum, I am sure CB would give the last word on that.
Well....I just read some old posts and CB refers to the plant as Hoya compacta - NOT H. carnosa 'compacta'....and we all know that she is a stickler for writing names correctly. It was H. compacta throughout her numerous posts about it.
All of that scientific stuff is hard on my brain ... I have a hard time keeping human ancestry straight. I remember one time my Mom telling me someone was my fourth cousin removed or some such ... all very confusing, I just knew she was a relative!
Only fact I know is: I Love hoyas, all shapes, sizes, leaf venation (is that a word?) and the blooms ... oh my goodness, the blooms! And sometimes fragrance too!
Check this out:
The International Plant Names Index (IPNI) says:
Hoya compacta was named by C.M.Burton and was published in Hoyan, 12(2:2): ii (1990).
So, CB will have an opinion on it, as it is her name. I still wonder what it is. The IPNI is the source for the proper taxonomic names to as accurately as they can maintain.
I also have read enough of her 'blog' 'The Hoyan' to understand how bitter she is about Hoya taxonomy.
AnalogDog,
I'm confused. The above statement seems contradictory.
If the IPNI is "the source for the proper taxonomic names", and they say that H. compacta was named and published, then why do you still wonder what it is? Regardless of who named it, it's listed as H. compacta in the IPNI, so it's legitimate, right?
Gabi
Yes, due to my studies looking for it, I erred, calling it an invalid name. Since CB has named a plant H. compacta, and there are many plants now using H. compacta, we need to see a description of the plant to figure out which plant it is. There should also be a herbarium sample of the plant. To demystify this further the article in Hoyan, 12(2:2): ii (1990), should tell all. But I fail to get further with this one right now.
I have a deck to paint, lawn to mow, and life to live.
I understand what AD is saying....he wants to know - aside from the taxonomic name - the botanical provenence of the plant. Usually people such as CB do a lot of research and study into a plant's structure etc. before sticking their neck out to publish it. At the time of publication is when their peers get to YAY or NAY their research and if it is accepted, that is what it becomes.
Maybe someone can ask on the MSN forum about a description of the plant. I just don't want to get into that forum, as I am concerned that CB and I would clash due to our search for the truth.
CB has changed her mind and admitted mistakes in some of her publications - so what the plant IS is not a matter of opinion....it is a matter of FACTS. As she did the research, I would not have a problem with her 'opinion'... She also receives emails and readily answers them.
I vaguely remember CB saying that already the difference in the flower indicates that H. compacta is not a form of H. carnosa.
So let's see :) ---->
MILAN....GREAT to read you!!!! You back for long? (smile)
Oh my goodness, what a Phenomenal photograph! Some of these remind me of the texture of soft fuzzy stuffed animals! That is a great picture!
Carol, I've been around here, just quietly ;)
Thanks for the photo of the flowers, nice macro shot!
Personally, I would say that the two flowers are markedly similar, as if they were related. But then again, its a lumper vs. splitters war, huh?
I still want to see a species description.
They may be related...but not the same.... Why don't you just write her for the description?
Wow...what a fascinating discussion! I have to admit what AD says makes sense to me...way back in the '70's, when I first started getting interested in hoyas, both Hindu Rope and Krinkle 8 were considered "monstrose" forms of carnosa...and they were usually written H. carnosa compacta "Hindu Rope" or H. carnosa "Crispa" Hindu Rope...when I returned to hoyas recently, I was surprised to see compacta listed as a species...On the other hand, the bloom photos do seem to indicate it's a species separate and distinct from carnosa...(thanks for the photos) :-)
Anyway, you big chickens, I e-mailed Ms. Burton to ask her for a description and/or photos of H. compacta (yes, I am willing to throw myself on a live grenade in the interest of truth and science)...I'll let you know when, or if, she responds...she may not answer me since I'm not an MSN member and she has no idea who I am...
Shelley
Brave!!!!! Talked to Ted Green who said it was a Cobia cultivar. Dunno.
Hoya compacta is a valid name, and this plant does have a differently structured corona from the plant we call Hoya carnosa. You can see it in the picture above, and also there is an excellent drawing comparing the two in The Hoyan V.4:51. They really are different in corona detail- but not dramatically so in overall aspect, except for the leaves. Both have smallish, flat, fuzzy pink flowers with a bit of red on the corona. They smell pretty much the same too.
I did photograph a plant of H. 'Krinkle-8' recently- this has been determined to be a form of H. compacta by David Liddle, but the corona looks a lot more like that of our Hoya carnosa to me, so I don't know about that. (The flowers came from a nursery and had to ride all day in my truck- so excuse the dust, debris and cat hairs.)
The whole thing is mysterious- I don't believe anyone has ever documented a plant looking like compacta in nature, and I have never seen or heard of an older herbarium sheet that matches the leaves. I think the only one that matches is the one CB deposited (or referred to, it may have been deposited by DK) when she published it.
My guess would be that compacta is a very similar species to carnosa, and in nature has leaves that look very similar to carnosa's. I would guess that the weird mutation came about in the Cobia nursery, where they seemed to be constantly producing new forms of variegation. They must have been exposing seed to radiation or something.
It is suspicious- they had four or five distinct forms of variegation in H. carnosa, and they had exactly the same forms of variegation also in compacta, which would suggest that they are physically somehow related.
Eventually someone will genetically test all of the plants we have that look like carnosa, and then we may get some concrete answers.
I also send CB an email, but have not heard a peep back yet.