Hoya lacunosa — AG06-02
Follow Gavrus’s AG06-02 seedling record and the flower observations that changed his initial hybrid suspicion.
Trace a specifically coded seedling through an original grower account, preserving the change from suspected hybrid to the writer’s later interpretation and the unresolved link to living material.
Overview
In Une fausse joie, published in 2008, Alexandre Gavrus (“Pakeha”) describes seedlings raised from a pod received from the Serres d’Auteuil in November 2006. He records AG06-02 among the plants he retained. Leaf differences initially made him suspect a cross with a nearby Hoya litoralis. After examining flowers and pollinaria in 2008, he interpreted the plants as lacunosa. This profile follows his documented sequence without treating it as confirmed parentage or a link to plants now sold under the code.
Photo Gallery
No identity-, rights-, and profile-reviewed photographs are available yet.
What We Know
- Gavrus reports that the pod came from a plant labelled Hoya lacunosa ssp. pallidiflora. The article does not authenticate that identification or identify the pollen parent.
- AG06-02 appears among four coded plants still with the writer. Other AG06 codes identify separate plants in his account; they are not alternate names for one seedling.
- He reports seeing AG06-02 and AG06-05 flower in early June 2008. Flower and pollinarium comparisons led him to reconsider the suspected litoralis cross. This is his assessment, without a controlled pollination record.
- He describes later foliage as more typical of lacunosa and suggests juvenile leaves may explain the earlier differences. That interpretation does not establish a stable leaf trait or a general developmental rule.
- The article favors distributing AG06-02, AG06-05 and AG06-06. It provides historical distribution context, but no continuous record connecting a present-day plant to AG06-02.
What We Are Still Learning
What records identify the original pod-bearing plant?
What would help: Serres d’Auteuil accession records, dated plant labels and any identification or voucher tied to the November 2006 pod. Do not substitute a modern pallidiflora accession.
Is there evidence identifying the pollen parent?
What would help: A contemporaneous pollination record or suitable evidence tied to the original parents and seedlings. Nearby litoralis and leaf resemblance do not establish a cross.
Which living plants can be traced to AG06-02?
What would help: Dated acquisition and propagation records linking an identified plant to Gavrus’s particular coded seedling, with gaps recorded explicitly.
When was the name Auteuil attached to AG06-02?
What would help: An original dated naming statement and a traceable connection between that named plant and the coded seedling. The 2008 article does not use Auteuil as a cultivar name.
What do the original comparisons show about this seedling?
What would help: Dated leaf, flower and pollinarium records tied to AG06-02 and identified comparison plants. Distinguish Gavrus’s observations and interpretation from independent botanical assessment.
Common Misconceptions
- A suspected cross is not confirmed hybrid parentage.
- A pod from a plant labelled pallidiflora does not establish the identity of either parent.
- The AG06 codes distinguish historical seedlings; a shared series does not make them one clone.
- A matching modern sales label does not supply a missing propagation chain.
Research and Sources
Help answer this profile’s questions
Can you add original AG06-02 labels, naming records or a documented propagation history?
Contribute evidence for this profile