Little Leaf
A historical McDonald selection described with small leaves and a Krinkle 8-like texture, but not as a miniature plant.
Historical Little Leaf leaf size and texture, the limits of its miniature comparison, and separation from similarly named selections and the pubicalyx received label.
Overview
Hoya carnosa Little Leaf is a historical cultivated selection attributed to Genevieve McDonald. Burton reported leaves about 1½ by 1 inch and later compared its appearance with a smaller Krinkle 8, while explicitly saying it was not a miniature. The original cultivar naming publication and date remain unverified. This profile explains those descriptions and separates them from Little One, Little Star and a plant received under the same Little Leaf name as Hoya pubicalyx. Neither small leaves nor the received name alone authenticates a living plant as McDonald’s selection.
Related profiles: Krinkle 8 · Little Star · Little One
Photo Gallery
No identity-, rights-, and profile-reviewed photographs are available yet.
Evidence-Based Growing Insights
No form-specific care conclusion has passed review. The parent Hoya page remains the source for shared information; generic advice is not repeated here.
What We Know
- Burton’s 2005 account attributes Little Leaf to McDonald and gives its leaves as approximately 1½ × 1 inch, or about 3.8 × 2.5 cm. This is an approximate historical observation, not a measured size range or a diagnostic threshold for every later plant carrying the name.
- Burton’s 2006 entry explicitly says Little Leaf is not a miniature. She compares its appearance with a smaller, stunted-looking Krinkle 8. That is a qualitative comparison, not a controlled growth-rate measurement, a diagnosis of poor health, or evidence that Little Leaf is a Krinkle 8 clone or descendant.
- Hatch’s later compilation describes Little Leaf blades as dimpled and crinkled like Krinkle 8, but smaller. The entry supplies no accession or propagation history. Its agreement with the older comparison helps document how the name was described; it does not authenticate a modern plant or establish genetic origin.
- Little One is the separate selection that Burton described as having initially small leaves which later became very large. That developmental account does not belong to Little Leaf. Little Star and Pixie Krinkle also have their own entries; similar names or a small-leaved appearance do not establish cultivar equivalence.
- The MyHoyas collector account documents a plant received as Hoya pubicalyx Little Leaf at a meeting in September 2004. It does not provide a connection to McDonald’s carnosa selection. The acquisition date is not a cultivar naming date, and the anticipated dark flowers in that account are not an observed flower description for the historical carnosa plant.
- These sources document an attributed origin and leaf descriptions, but do not identify verified seed and pollen parents, demonstrate stability through successive propagation, or connect modern stock to the original selection. A traceable plant with dated leaf and flower records is needed before a current label can be tested against this history.
What We Are Still Learning
When was Little Leaf first named as a cultivar?
What would help: The original dated naming description, catalog or correspondence, with its complete passage and imprint. Later newsletter dates, copyright years and acquisition records do not establish the naming date.
Can a living propagation line be connected to McDonald’s selection?
What would help: Original labels, nursery or correspondence records, and dated transfers connecting the same plant through successive propagation. Preserve gaps and exact received labels.
Which leaf and flower characters persist in documented plants?
What would help: Measurements and leaf and flower photographs from the same traceable plants, with age and growing conditions. Compare Little Leaf with documented Krinkle 8 material rather than assuming shared identity from a similar texture.
What is the relationship to plants labelled pubicalyx Little Leaf?
What would help: The original received labels, source and propagation records for those plants, compared with the historical carnosa records. Photographs need creator credit and explicit display permission or a verifiable reuse license.
Common Misconceptions
- Small leaves do not make Little Leaf a permanently miniature plant; Burton explicitly distinguished those descriptions.
- A stunted-looking comparison is not evidence that a plant is sick or needs a special care regime.
- Resemblance to Krinkle 8 does not prove the same clone, a mutation or parentage.
- The large mature leaves described for Little One must not be transferred to Little Leaf.
- Little Leaf, Little One, Little Star and Pixie Krinkle are not interchangeable names.
- A pubicalyx received label or its acquisition date does not authenticate McDonald’s carnosa selection or establish when it was named.