Hoya lacunosa — IML 1039 — Bogor Java label
Compare the IML 1039 collection caption with a historical checklist label carrying Bogor Java.
Distinguish a documented accession caption from an unverified locality-bearing received label, without turning place wording into a wild-origin claim.
Overview
Edyta Kubiczek’s lacunosa collection post, displayed as published on 7 November 2010, uses the label IML 1039 / Bogor Java and describes the plant’s leaves and growth. MyHoyas later lists IML 1039 in its album, and a historical checklist also carries Bogor Java in the label. These records document use of the name and number. They do not establish a wild collection site or an unbroken propagation history.
Photo Gallery
No identity-, rights-, and profile-reviewed photographs are available yet.
What We Know
- MyHoyas album L uses the label Hoya lacunosa IML 1039. The visible album update is 11 July 2019; that is not an introduction date for the accession.
- The historical checklist records “Hoya lacunosa IML-1039(Bogor Java)”. This preserves received wording rather than confirming a collection locality or current ownership.
- The album caption contains neither Bogor nor Java. It provides no original accession card, voucher, propagation chain or statement connecting its plant to the checklist plant.
- The MyHoyas caption supplies no accession-specific measurements or growing observations. Kubiczek’s earlier account reports fast growth and soft, delicate, matte leaves for her IML 1039 / Bogor Java plant, but gives no measurements, observation period or recorded conditions. This is an attributed account of that plant, not a fixed growth rate or care prescription.
- The Bogor Java wording occurs in Kubiczek’s 2010 account as well as the historical checklist. Repetition of the label does not establish whether Bogor refers to a garden, supplier or wild collection site, or prove continuity between the plants.
What We Are Still Learning
What do original IML 1039 records say about Bogor and Java?
What would help: An original accession catalogue or card, collection records and any voucher explicitly tied to this number. Distinguish a garden or supplier location from a wild collection site.
Can the album and checklist plants be linked to the same material?
What would help: Dated acquisition and propagation records connecting each plant to the original accession. State gaps in the chain.
Which identified photographs or observations can be assigned to the accession?
What would help: Original labels, traceable plant history and dated leaf and flower photographs. Record observations separately from identification.
Are any distinctive growing requirements demonstrated?
What would help: Qualifying scientific field observations or controlled cultivation work tied to identified material. Neither a received locality label nor an album caption supplies that evidence.
Can the reported leaves and fast growth be checked in traceable IML 1039 material?
What would help: Dated observations and measurements of identified plants, with acquisition and propagation history, plant age and growing conditions. Do not infer a general rate from one qualitative grower report.
Common Misconceptions
- A place name in a received label does not establish a wild collection locality.
- Matching accession numbers in two collections do not prove an unbroken propagation history.
- The album update date does not date the accession’s collection, naming or introduction.
Research and Sources
Help answer this profile’s questions
Can you add original IML 1039 accession records or dated labels explaining the Bogor Java wording?
Contribute evidence for this profile