Hoya pubicalyx — Royal Hawaiian Purple
Published accounts document Royal Hawaiian Purple and its naming history. This profile follows those accounts and the unresolved use of Chimera.
The catalogue accession, reported propagation history and conflicting names help growers interpret a Royal Hawaiian Purple label. Present-day clone continuity and separate care requirements remain unresolved.
Overview
Royal Hawaiian Purple is a cultivated name documented in nursery and grower records; modern clone continuity remains unresolved. Liddle’s 2009 catalogue describes purple stems and new growth, with purple or black flowers in the same cluster. It does not establish a growth habit or leaf diagnosis unique to this material. The naming history includes a 2009 accession listing and reports of earlier wording, Hawaiian Royal Purple. A reported propagation route through Manila does not establish the original collection locality. Accounts also disagree about using Chimera as another name.
Photo Gallery
Hoya pubicalyx — Royal Hawaiian PurpleView photo detailsClose photo details
Image source · Rights and reuse terms
Flowers of a plant labeled Hoya pubicalyx Royal Hawaiian Purple by Trees For Tomorrow Nursery, published 23 January 2010.
Photographer or creator: K. Greaves / Trees For Tomorrow, Royal Hawaiian Purple (2010), CC BY-ND 3.0 New Zealand; full frame, no cropping or retouching.
Identification basis: Nursery-published label Royal Hawaiian Purple; no accession, voucher or independently authenticated clone continuity supplied. Source label is preserved.
Rights and reuse: CC BY-ND 3.0 NZ; attribution required, no derivatives. Full frame; no cropping or retouching.
Image record: WP-MEDIA-1012
What We Know
- Liddle’s January 2009 catalogue lists accession IML0056 as Royal Hawaiin Purple; its colour description belongs to that material.
- Burton’s December 2009 account reports selling material later obtained in Manila by Dexter Heuschkel and sent to Kloppenburg. This propagation history is not independently authenticated.
- MyHoyas uses Chimera as another name; Burton’s 2006 account disputes that usage and the interpretation of the pictured plant as a chimera. Genetic chimerism is not established.
- The registrar’s Red Buttons entry reports earlier Hawaiian Royal Purple wording in a 1998 account; the original still requires direct comparison.
- Albo Splash and compound RHP/Albo labels remain separate unresolved records. Leaf or flower colour alone cannot establish clone equivalence.
What We Are Still Learning
Which original publication establishes the name and its earliest wording?
What would help: The complete 1998 account cited by the registrar, earlier original descriptions and dated originator or introducer records.
Which living accessions can be traced to the historical material?
What would help: Original labels, accession records and dated propagation histories, including material distributed as IML0056.
Do identified Royal Hawaiian Purple accessions show repeatable differences in growing behaviour?
What would help: Dated observations on traceable material with light, watering, substrate, temperature and comparison plants recorded.
Common Misconceptions
- Royal Hawaiian Purple and Chimera can be treated as settled synonyms. The reviewed accounts disagree; the usage alone does not establish genetic chimerism.
Research and Sources
Help answer this profile’s questions
Share original Royal Hawaiian Purple labels, IML0056 records, dated supplier or propagation histories and flowering observations. Include growing conditions when known.
Contribute evidence for this profile