Hoya aff. lacunosa — Giant (IPPS 00274)
Trace the IPPS 00274 label without assuming it matches IML 1813, H62 or the historical Giant material.
Keep the IPPS 00274 source occurrence identifiable while investigating the shared Giant sales name and unresolved accession relationships.
Overview
Simone’s Hoyas lists material under an aff. lacunosa label with the code IPPS 00274 and says it is also sold as Giant. This profile follows that specific code occurrence. The naming bullet does not supply an original accession record or connect the material to IML 1813, H62 or the Giant account published in Stemma in 2007. Those research records remain separate while the relationships are investigated.
Photo Gallery
No identity-, rights-, and profile-reviewed photographs are available yet.
What We Know
- The source records IPPS 00274 with an aff. lacunosa qualification. The code identifies this naming occurrence; the tentative botanical placement is not resolved here.
- The writer describes a larger-growing plant with diamond-shaped leaves and good flowering. The bullet supplies no measurements, observation period or cultivation protocol. These descriptions remain attributed source testimony.
- The source says the material is also sold as Giant. That documents a sales-label association within this account, rather than an accession crosswalk to every other Giant-labelled plant.
- The naming bullet provides no original accession ledger, voucher or propagation chain. It does not demonstrate that IPPS 00274, IML 1813 and H62 designate the same material.
- The archived page carries platform metadata dated 11 March 2020. This does not establish the accession’s collection date, the code’s first use or the origin of the Giant label.
What We Are Still Learning
What original record defines IPPS 00274?
What would help: The originating accession ledger, dated catalogues or original plant labels, with the keeper and any documented transfer history.
Which living plants can be traced to that accession?
What would help: Acquisition and propagation records linking an identified plant to the original code. Record gaps rather than filling them from a matching sales name.
Is IPPS 00274 connected to IML 1813, H62 or the historical Giant account?
What would help: An explicit dated accession cross-reference supported by distribution records and traceable material. Similar size or the shared Giant name is insufficient.
Has the tentative aff. lacunosa identification been reassessed?
What would help: A documented botanical determination tied to an accession or voucher, with identified flowering material and the basis of the comparison.
Which growth and flowering observations apply to identified material?
What would help: Dated measurements, observation periods and recorded conditions from traceable plants. Qualifying scientific evidence is needed before inferring distinctive growing requirements.
Common Misconceptions
- A Giant sales label does not establish that all plants carrying it are one clone.
- Different accession codes cannot be treated as synonyms without an explicit documented cross-reference.
- The aff. qualification preserves identification uncertainty; omitting it from a later sales label does not resolve that uncertainty.
- A short report of good flowering does not establish flowering frequency or a special care prescription.
Research and Sources
Help answer this profile’s questions
Can you add original IPPS 00274 records or documented cross-references to other Giant-labelled material?
Contribute evidence for this profile