Nick Maclaren wrote:

I think that you will find that it is NOT I. indica. In fact, I am
surprised at that Web page, because at least most forms are much darker,
I didn't know that there was a white form, and the leaves look wrong.
When I referred to a Web search, I was using the more botanical hits
as authoritative, incidentally. See the following for a more typical
set of flowers and leaves:

It's a very bad and misleading web page. You have to look further to
see that all but one of the pics that are accredited with being
Ipomoea indica are entirely different species.

http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/l...5728110.html?3

Ah. Now that pic in the 3rd message down is more like it - as typical
of I. indica as you could wish. It is the plant that I grow here and
grew many years ago at my nursery. My first plant was from a cutting
I got from Oxford Botanical Gardens, but in those days we all called
it Ipomoea learii.

Janet, if the plant you have seen was grown from seed, it could not
have been Ipomoea indica. That species has confounded botanists and
horticulturalists alike because it has never been know to set seed and
its sole method of procreation is via self-layering. Can you remember
roughly how big the flowers were? From the Ipomoea perspective, large
is in the region of 10cms.(3") or more across (I. indica produces
flowers this size). Very large flowers exceed that by a fair degree
and if they are closer to 15cms. (6") or more across, they almost
certainly must be variants of Ipomoea nil.