As I'm sure we all know, but I'm just stating it to make this post clearer: weather is an exact science from moment to moment - it is or isn't raining, it is or isn't hot, etc. Climate on the other hand, is an attempt to define a general truth about weather over time - which is why the plant hardiness zone maps are periodically revised. But it is basically impossible to define climate, because weather can be "freakish." I'm of the opinion that the Central Florida disparities arise from the Tampa area because of Tampa Bay. The 2006 arborday.org zone map (link below to download a version that can be enlarged) shows a Zone 10 area extending inland from Tampa Bay. The USDA cleverly, if you will allow me to say so, has avoided a detailed zone map of Florida. My apologies, but since GardenWeb only allows us one link per post, that reference is here: http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/Maps.aspx Florida isn't available in the States dropdown. I think that the arborday.org map is more accurate in terms of the influence of Tampa Bay - more accurate, not exact, not most correct, nor anything like that. But IF the Zone 10 area exists, then one can easily see how confusion arises when including the Tampa area in Central Florida discussions. I have to laugh about this because the Tampa area is "Central Florida!" Geographically speaking Tampa is in Central Florida. But in terms of climate zone, maybe it isn't. Accurate statements that apply to plants in two different zones cannot be made*. This is why I believe that even though the Tampa area is IN Central Florida, it isn't Central Florida for the purposes of plant discussions. I feel like a Lewis Carroll character talking to Alice, but hopefully I'm being clearer than that. *It is difficult enough to make accurate statements about plants in the same zone. Here is a link that might be useful: The 2006 arborday.org zone map download

Hello Paalexan ... "The short version of all those disagreements being that whenever you have high hobbyist interest in a taxonomic group, some of the hobbyists want to recognize all variation at the species level, which leads to large numbers of spurious species." I agree but at the same time taxa are being divided by new data which in a morphological or better yet a "visual sense" are very simalar .. example : the breakup of the genus Opuntia. This makes new taxa a bit "spurious" to the serious hobbyist. Also .. I think ... the motivation to accept new nomenclature differs between taxonamist and hobbyist. To the taxonamist new names often demonstrate scientific progress of some kind .. to the hobbyist confusion as to who is called what now ?? To the hobbyist the cost of accepting new names are not justified by the benafits. In this sense the taxonamist is the "splitter" and creator of too many "needless" taxa. In addition groups like Cactii and Orchids are also fairly complex in morphology and have been researched considerably more then other taxa and to no ones fault one would expect a long nomenclatural history. All this is complicated by variabilty introduced by cultivation. Lastly .. Who really is the taxonamist ? Does anyone or a single group really have the final word ? A hobbyist could very well bethe "expert". I would guess that in many groups of plants it is much easier for a single expert or small group of experts to agree and set nomenclature. In other popular groups of plants their is a very large audience that needs to agree on who is called what and why. More chance for disagreements and even intentional "revolts" against name changes. Just some more thoughts ... good chatting with you .. thanks for the Journal references ... very helpful !! Good Day ...

Last weekend while grocery shopping got my second EA basket; it was lacking tag but it's green compacta. There was no way I could pass on it, so it went home with me. I don't know if this is record number of cuttings EA managed to stick in one pot, but for ten bucks I got 23 (!) vines ranging 4-12 inches in length! Now there are: original hanging basket, 3 and 8 in pots. It needed new home asap, as there was green mold growing on top of that muddy mess poor thing was growing in! Now it got very chunky bark based mix and I hope it will be happy in it!

> the original has a couple of these bare vines right now! It's in an optimal decoration location, hanging over a bannister. Too bad it's not sunny enough there... Suggest to your mom to point a light toward the plant, to try to get it to bloom. It's difficult to light these huge plants properly though, just because they are so big. Maybe a T5 bulb of appropriate length, suspended vertically - because that is a way to light up the most of the leaves. It's an absolutely gorgeous specimen plant, by the way! > The fertilizer I used said it was okay to use a stronger dose, bi-weekly. Though the more I think about it, consistency might be better. Use 1/2 or even 1/4 the label dose though. They want to sell you lots of fertilizer, so they generally mention the highest dose the plant can take, which is not optimal - especially if your cultural conditions (light, water, temps etc.) are not absolutely perfect, which indoors they generally aren't. > I've been considering repotting it, actually. It is common advice to create a well draining potting medium. Well, you gotta be careful with conventional wisdom. If conventional wisdom says one thing, but my eyes tell me another, I am going to be open-minded and attentive to what others are doing, but at the end of the day, I am probably going to trust my eyes and my experience, and what the plant is telling me. Your plant is growing - which is my answer to any sort of criticism of your setup (including the criticisms I came up with myself, as you noticed!) So, I would probably consider not repotting now - not if it continues to look happy and grow as it does now. > I will remove [the incandescent lamp] from the mix. Yeah, or replace it with fluorescent if it seems like there's not enough light. > I've created a box to cover my plants at night. This might be overkill, but I think it might be a good idea. Yeah, I think it's an overkill. A few other house plants (not hoyas) absolutely require a (totally) dark uninterrupted period of a minimal number of hours for blooming, but I do not think I've ever read any requirement like that for hoyas. Not for H. carnosa anyway. > I've decided that when summer rolls around, I will place my carnosa outside. Yes, a good idea. I do not have outside space, but people say it's a whole different ball game - their plants go on all sorts of amazing growth spurts, mostly unimaginable to indoor-only growers.