Hoya — Rebecca
Reconcile the original origin account with the later correction and keep observed seed set separate from inferred parentage.
Reconcile the original origin account with the later correction and keep observed seed set separate from inferred parentage.
Overview
Jones’s 2009 Stemma account documents Rebecca and names it for Rebecca Isaac. Later correspondence reproduced by Vermont Hoyas corrects an earlier Thailand-origin story. Together these records support a bounded origin profile while leaving pollen parentage and modern material continuity unresolved.
Photo Gallery
Hoya — RebeccaView photo detailsClose photo details
Pink and yellow flowers on a cultivated plant identified by its grower as Hoya “Rebecca.” Photograph by Rebecca Baron.
Photographer or creator: Rebecca Baron
Identification basis: Grower identification Hoya Rebecca; hybrid or cultivar identity not independently verified.
Rights and reuse: © Rebecca Baron. Reuse requires permission from Rebecca Baron.
Image record: IMG-000009
Hoya — RebeccaView photo detailsClose photo details
Foliage and trailing stems of cultivated material labelled Hoya Rebecca. Label identity has not been independently authenticated. Photograph by Rebecca Baron.
Photographer or creator: Rebecca Baron
Identification basis: Cultivated material labelled Rebecca; clone continuity has not been independently authenticated.
Rights and reuse: © Rebecca Baron. Displayed by permission on this Growing Profile. Resized for the web. Further reuse requires permission.
Image record: IMG-000209
What We Know
- Origin evidence: Jones’s 2009 Stemma account reports seeing a moth visit a plant labelled lacunosa Langkawi Island, then finding a seedpod on that plant. Obscura was flowering nearby. The seed-parent observation is distinct from the inferred pollen parent.
- Description in 2009: The 2009 account describes small foliage, red coloration in bright light, and fragrant, revolute pale-pink flowers with yellow corona scales. Those attributed characters can guide documented comparisons; appearance alone cannot authenticate a cutting.
- Corrected history: The Rebecca account retracts the Thailand story and reproduces Jones’s account of separately named same-pod seedlings, Rebecca and Rachel. It gives 2007 or 2008 provisionally. Repetition on the Rachel page does not supply a second independent origin record.
- One grower’s timeline: Vermont Hoyas reports a May 2018 cutting flowering in December 2018. Container changes and a move into a grow tent accompanied development and leaf coloration. The account cannot isolate which conditions caused an outcome or predict another plant’s flowering time.
What We Are Still Learning
Which records connect living Rebecca plants to the original seedling?
What would help: Original labels, dated nursery distribution records and a continuous chain of propagated material.
Can the pollen parent and event date be resolved?
What would help: Seed-batch or controlled-cross records and the original dated Jones message; preserve the current 2007/2008 uncertainty until then.
How stable are the described characters?
What would help: Repeated observations of traceable accessions through propagation and flowering under recorded conditions.
What establishes the name’s formal status?
What would help: An applicable naming record or registrar assessment tied to this material; the historical use of cultivar language alone does not settle formal status.
Common Misconceptions
- The withdrawn Thailand narrative should not be repeated as the current source conclusion.
- A flowering obscura nearby does not prove that it supplied pollen.
- The reported seven-month flowering interval is not a general guarantee.
Research and Sources
Help answer this profile’s questions
Can you help connect this name to documented material? Original labels, acquisition and propagation records, dated flower photographs and the missing original records would help answer the questions above.
Contribute evidence for this profile