416 NOTES ON HOYA. 



be worth while to put on record the conclusions at which Mr. Hiern 

 and I have arrived. 



The name originated with the Asclepias jjendula of Roxburgh, 

 who published it in Hortiis Bengahmis, p. 85 (1814), and (with 

 description) in Fl. Indica, ii. 36 (1832)/'' There is in the National 

 Herbarium a specimen named by Roxburgh and sent by him to 

 Banks in 1813, which J. J. Bennett considered identical with 

 H. nicoharica ; from which it differs by large flowers with the scales 

 of the staminal corona rather obtuse and splitting at the tip, thinly 

 pubescent pedicels, and somewhat larger leaves which are rather 

 conspicuously three-nerved at the base. This agrees with the 

 description in the Contributions, as well as with that of the Icoues, 

 which seems mainly a transcription, but it is not the plant there 

 figured (from a Roxburgh drawing). 



The only specimen seen by Sir Joseph Hooker which he refers 

 to H. pendula was '''an unnamed one in Wight's Herbarium." 

 which, being unnamed, is not typical for Wight's species. 



It is evident from the date of publication that the plant of the 

 Co7itribiitions must retain the naine pejid^da, and that this, in spite 

 of Sir Joseph Hooker, must be the 'pendula of the Fl. Brit. India, 

 for it certainly is that of Roxburgh's Fl. Indica. The figure in 

 Wight's Icones should, it seems to us, be referred to H. Wightii — a 

 name now to be retained for this and for the "Hoya No. 27" of the 

 Hooker & Thomson distribution, on which the description seems to 

 be based. 



The synonymy of the two species will stand as follows : — 



HoYA PENDULA W. & A., Contrib. p. 36 (1834), and Wight Ic. ii. 



part ii. p. 4, excl. tab. 



Asclepias pendula Roxb. Fl. Ind. ii. 36, and in Herb. Banks. 



HoYA Wightii Hook. f. in Fl. Brit. Ind. iv. 59, quoad " Hoya 



n. 27, Herb. Ind. Or. H. f. & T.," excl. syn. 



Hoya pendula Wight Ic. t. 474, excl. descript. ; Hook. f. in 



Fl. Brit. Ind. iv. 61. 

 Asclepias pendula Roxb. Ic. ex Wight & Hook, f., 11. cc. 



Sir Joseph places the vars. Rheedei and NeeJgherrense of H. pen- 

 dida W. & A. under H. Wightii, and says that they are " not 

 distinguishable." The former, however, is based by Wight on 

 A. pendula Roxb. and upon Rheede's plant, and so far as the 

 former goes must be regarded as the type of the species. The 

 latter is identified by Wight himself (/.c.) with '^ H. revoluta 

 Wight ! in Wall. Herb. Soc. Linn.," which Sir Joseph retains as a 

 distinct species, citing it as of "Wight MSS." The reference to 

 the name in Contributions seems to have been overlooked in Index 

 Kewensis, where it stands as of "Wight ex Decne. in DC. Prod, 

 viii. 636." 



Hoya crassifolia Haw. Suppl. PI. Succ. p. 8 (1819). Sir 

 Joseph Hooker (/. c. 62) says that this name " would supersede " 



* The figure cited by him from Rheede (Hort. Malab. ix. t. 13) and by 

 subsequent authors does not seem to belong to this species. 



