Photo #1 labeled longifolia

I agree, the leaves look short for a longifolia. I would also wager wayetii. My IML 1817 has leaves that are a lot broader than my first longifolia, which has very very skinny leaves, but they are still long. Obviously, once it flowers you'll know what it is, since wayetii and kentiana flowers look nothing like longifolia flowers.

Photo #2 labeled javanica

This one looks more like longifolia or shepherdii to me - how succulent are the leaves? They look a little thin in that picture, but I'm assuming that's an illusion. If they are thin, I might have to revisit my guess. CB has a lovely explanation of the differences between longifolia and shepherdii here.

The others look right to me.

This post was edited by greedyghost on Fri, May 16, 14 at 16:29

> Photo #2 labeled javanica - how succulent are the leaves?

Not very succulent, thinner than, say, wayetii and even thinner than heuschkeliana. Although this may just be because of slight dehydration from the travel that they just went through. As they are now, they are about the thickness of flavida or australis 'Lizard Isle' or samoensis.

I am researching all these a bit more, and obscura ID seems suspicious to me as well - no visible contrasting veins and no hint of red on the leaves (although it may have grown in relatively low light for reds to come through). I'll stick it under lights and see if I get the copper tinge on the leaves.

Now I am seeing wrong IDs everywhere, rightfully or not.

Re davidcummingii: http://www.hoyor.net/en/showspecies.php?id=41 says leaves are 2/3", but mine are full 3 inches long without the length of the petiole. The vine feels mildly sandpapery to the touch though, so that matches. Hoyor may very well be wrong though, or talking about some different clone, as Doug Chamberlain's site shows leaves that are about my size.

Re litoralis: my leaves look different from Joni's (http://srqhoyas.com/images/0930_2.jpg) : no dimples between veins on mine, no curvature on my leaves (they are almost completely flat), and the overall width not as uniform as Joni's (mine start narrow at the petiole, then get much wider and end in an acute tip). This narrow length by the petiole may be light intensity-dependent - in low light one of my hoyas grows like this. The undersides of leaves feels like a very fine nail file. The top sides are smooth, waxy and glabrous (not hairy at all). Can somebody who has a plant check this for me, please?

> Photo #2 labeled javanica - This one looks more like longifolia or shepherdii to me.

I just realized I can narrow the list (sorry, the idea seems obvious now). Here is the pool of plants all these cuttings could have been taken from:

hoya litoralis
hoya imperialis
hoya lobbii
hoya davidcummingii
hoya longifolia
hoya javanica
hoya wayetii kentiana
hoya vitellinoides
hoya obscura
hoya incrassata

Of course, some on the list may be mislabeled to begin with, but at least it's something. Longifolia is on the list, and that was one of your guesses, GG, so that may be it. I did an image search for longifolia, and two distinctly different-looking leaves come up in top 10 results.

Top images do not look like what is labeled javanica in my pic:
http://www.psthehoyan.com/PStheHoyan6_2.htm
http://khedlund.tripod.com/hoyapdl/long.html

Further down on the list of 10 top google results, I do see something very similar to my picture:
http://daves garden.com/guides/pf/showimage/106975/#b (copy and paste into browser, remove the space and press enter - GW is not letting me post this link.)
http://www.anniesmagicgarden.com/product.php?productid=17576

So, who do I believe? I tend to believe CB (psthehoyan) and Simone(*) more, which means my javanica is not longifolia.

Very confusing.

(*) sorry, can't link to that page at all on GW because of the space in the URL. Very annoying! But the picture of leaves is like in the psthehoyan site.

This post was edited by greentoe357 on Fri, May 16, 14 at 23:35

Who did you get these from that you have so many whose IDs you seem to question? (Maybe a vendor we wish to avoid?)

Sorry if this is obvious, but have you asked the vendor?

This was not from a vendor, just a private deal, and I love the cuts no matter what. Beyond the two definitely wrong IDs, the rest may be entirely in my head - it's just that I am looking at these much closer than I ever looked at others.

Even if we do not resolve the ID, then there is even more of a reason to look forward to flowers!

Thanks.

This post was edited by sunnysa on Sat, May 17, 14 at 17:34

I can understand where Sunny is coming from - it's a bit hard having ones IDs thrown under the microscope. I'm sure GT didn't mean to come across as critical - just circumspect. Thanks, Sunny, for being so generous and passing some of your good fortune on to others. I sure am sorry we made a sweetheart like you feel awkward! Please accept my apologies, too.

I know when I first started I had some trades where I sent plants with the wrong label, because I didn't know enough to tell the label the plant had come with was inaccurate. My trade partners were very sweet and didn't say a word about it, although I'm sure, being much more experienced than me, they were surprised when they opened the package! (Thanks for being so nice, guys!)

It's something that happens to everyone, and isn't a mistake we ever really grow out of, and often a plant passes from hand to hand without ever being corrected. My early very-obvious mistakes still makes me blush to this day, though, and if I could remember the specific trades, I would send them the correct plant now!! My mistakes were well out of order because those were trade-for-trade not free give-aways. Sunny, I feel the majority of your labels are correct, and you've no reason to feel judged. :)

In GT's defense, he is new to Hoyas and can't rely on his own judgement to make sure his labels are correct. And, the Hoya world would probably be a more accurate place if we all put new acquitions under the microscope before we accepted that their labels were correct.

That said, as you say yourself, GT you are probably just having a bout of "seeing a mis-ID under every bush."

Re: davidcumingii - Sunny just saw the blooms on this one herself, so she can easily answer your uncertainty. These flowers are very unique and obvious for ID purposes.

Sunny, did they look like this:

Leaf length isn't really a good identifier, as they can grow to different lengths in different conditions, even if they are the same clone. Mine is the IML 0892 and the leaves are the same length as Hoyor's description, in my growing conditions.

Re: litoralis

I got my litoralis and inconspicua both from Ted Green and they both have leaves just like the cutting Sunny sent you. They are, as you describe, smooth, waxy, and glabrous. You've seen what the flowers look like, as I posted them recently.

This post was edited by greedyghost on Sat, May 17, 14 at 14:37

Sunny, I don't think there is any need to become defensive. Eugene is very, very meticulous and he is fairly new to the hobby. IDs tend to be really important and he is no exception. He wasn't saying your cuts sucked or anything...he's just curious.

Eugene, everything besides the first two look correct. The first two...I wouldn't know. I don't like thin leaves (both look and succulence) so I'm no help.

I just flicked the buds right off a Hoya just an hour ago. I'm still annoyed! >_

Re: obscura

It's a bit hard to tell from the photo, but obscura does have very distinctive veining. I have an obscura that looks very much like that one, so that's why I feel there's no reason to question the ID at this point. Put it under high light and I bet the characteristic veining will start popping out at you after a while. It's just been growing in lower light conditions.

As far as the first two go, I would tentatively label them as wayetii and shepherdii - with a question mark on the end - and then wait on flowers. The latter looks very much like the old school longifolia I have that I got from VB. When I Google images, the plant is often labeled as longifolia, but when people's plants flower, this really narrow leaf one always seems to have shepherdii flowers, which makes me question my own label.

Mine hasn't flowered yet, so I guess I'll put a question mark on its label and wait with you. ^_~

This post was edited by greedyghost on Sat, May 17, 14 at 16:18

I'm so sorry I asked, was just curious; was not looking to make trouble. Perhaps this would have been best handled off Forum.

No problem, PG, and thanks to everyone who chimed in. Not trying to create trouble and this is not personal against anyone, of course. I've emailed Sunnysa.

I'll mark the questionable two and will wait for flowers. All the more reason to give them the best care I can, so they reveal who they are. This is exciting! (Silver lining!)

@ goddess

I always need a glass of wine after I flick buds off. I am also having a bad bud day because I had two ellipticas budding up and they both dropped their buds today. I think I remember someone saying that elliptica is very sensitive to being moved when it's budding up, so that's probably why. I lost elliptica buds last month too. arrrrrrrrrrrgggg

Am I going to have to move them somewhere where they don't move? That is so not my style. Maybe I'll put them in the aquarium.

There was a conversation recently on facebook about what causes bud drops, and there were very little (khm no) definitive information. But getting the hoya moved or turned was high on the list of suspected reasons. Underwatering for some species and overwatering for others were named as suspected reasons as well.

Yeah, I've heard all the same theories. I guess I just feel like this is one of those situations where people are vulnerable to inferring causation from correlation... because everyone wants to believe there's something they could have done differently.

In my experience, Hoyas are inclined to drop their buds the first 1-2 times they attempt to bloom. (My ellipticas fall in this category) Other than that, I haven't witnessed them being particularly precious during their flower pregnancy. I think people (including me) just overthink it. ;)

What we need to be focusing on is getting the conditions right for the plant to bud up in the first place. Once it's budding, we've done our part and the rest is up to it.

Personally, I think the longifolia is correct. It looks just like mine, and I'm not saying mine couldn't be wrong. I keep pretty meticulous records of where I get mine, but this is one that somehow slipped through the cracks and I don't have that information recorded. But it is very different from wayetii - the leaves are a little shorter and do not get the characteristic black edges.

I created a PDF file of "long leaved Hoyas" so if I lose tags, I can look at it and know what's what. I especially have trouble distinguishing Minibelle and shepherdell. I tried uploading it, but apparently, it's only set up to accept images. If anyone wants it, you can contact me through this site.

Denise in Omaha

If you do a google image search for hoya longifolia, it looks like two different plants come up as top results. The very first two images are from psthehoyan and Simones-hoyas, both of which I trust. They show what could be my plant - one difference I could see though is the tip is more acute there than on my plant (and on my wayetii, that's why I am thinking it's a wayetii). Further images show really long and narrow leaves, sort of what I have as labelled javanica (my second photo).

So, you may be right, Denise, I just don't know enough to say one way or another.

This post was edited by greentoe357 on Mon, May 19, 14 at 13:42

Well, Simone's picture looks very much like the longifolia (IML 1817) I have. According to the Liddle catalogue, this is the "large leaf" longifolia, which implies the existence of a smaller leaf longifolia. Maybe that's what Denise has on her hands. Denise, has your longifolia bloomed for you?

The IML 1817 looks nothing like photo 2 (which looks like my old longifolia that I am now thinking is shepherdii). It looks very much like Hoya siamica, flat, with slightly ridged edges. I understand these two are closely related. I also have stoneiana, which is syn longifolia, and it has this same family look that is very distinctive, except it's furrier.

Really, the two things that make photo 1 ring a wayetii bell for me are the way the leaves curl and the fact that it's produced aerial roots in (I'm assuming) low humidity conditions. That's just a knee-jerk reaction, though, not an expert analysis.

@ Denise

No surprise you can't easily tell the difference between Minibelle and Shepherdell! As I'm sure you know, but others may not, they are sister seedlings (shepherdii x carnosa)! I'd love a copy of your PDF, btw! :)

Hi Eugene,
As to the questions you have about number one, I gave Irene a hoya wayetii and a hoya longifolia and it looks to me like you got the wayetti as number one and the longifolia as number two. Plants will have leaves of varying width and length so itâÂÂs difficult to identify from a cutting. Each plant I gave Irene came directly from David Liddle before he died and had the IML (Iris Marie Liddle) number on them.
The rest are accurate IDâÂÂs as I see them (I donâÂÂt know where those tags came from but each plant was labeled when I gave them to Irene and those are not the labels.)
You apparently did not get the hoya javanica which is a cousin of the âÂÂshooting starâ hoya multiflora so the label on photo two is wrong too..

In the order of your photos here is my information:

1. hoya wayetii kentiana IML 0394
2. hoya longifolia IML 0185
   3. hoya davidcummingii IML 0892
   4. hoya litoralis IML 0708
   5. hoya obscura IML 1003
   6. hoya imperialis IML 0245
   7. hoya lobbii IML 0185

I have seen each of these plants bloom and each had the correct bloom.

Good luck with your hobby and try to avoid getting in ID wars, many collectors would rather argue than help.

Leon

Phew, thanks, Leon! Didn't want to bother you, but I am glad I did. This is very helpful.

> I donâÂÂt know where those tags came from

Irene made them for me.

> 1. hoya wayetii kentiana IML 0394

This one is now called Hoya kentiana 'Philippines', I see from IML's catalog (http://www.linh.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/EmailOverseasCat2014.pdf). The single quotes are confusing, actually - I do not think it's a cultivar, and the "Philippines" part may be just where it's from. The catalog's style seems inconsistent when it comes to these locations.

> 6. hoya imperialis IML 0245

This one's not in the catalog anymore, and google results are pretty slim, but looks like it's a clone of imperialis ssp. Rauchii. Does anyone grow this IML? Leon, do you have a pic of the blooms by any chance? Is it difficult to flower indoors, if anyone knows?

> 7. hoya lobbii IML 0185

The IML is wrong here. 1161 or 1524 perhaps?

> I have seen each of these plants bloom and each had the correct bloom.

Cheers to that!

> try to avoid getting in ID wars

oh boy! Cheers to that, too! :-)

Thankfully the mystery is solved!! GT, I know you just grew several new grey hairs after this trade! I too would want to keep accurate records but don't sweat the little things! Lol

I bought a Noid from Joni. I saw it setting all by itself and she stated "NOID!". As if no one would want it. I told her no problem, I can wait till it blooms to find out. I was thinking it may take FOREVER, but I've got my first peduncle forming now. Looking forward to solving my mystery too!

Glad you've got your ID. Now enjoy growing them....

That's a great story, teisa⦠how funny! I can't wait to see

No more NOIDs in this thread, though. Even though it was a bit of a roller-coaster, I feel like I've thought more about longifolia in the last few days than I have for years, and that it's really improved my understanding of this plant.

Eugene, yes there is a problem with that number, I have 1427 for my Lobbii and the 0185 is Longifolia, donâÂÂt know how the typo happened. The rest of the numbers are what I have on file.