The picture on PBS is not D. maculata it is D. maxima. Drimiopsis maxima lacks the prominent petioles of Drimiopsis maculata is seen here. Lebatha's revision of Drimiopsis kept it separate from Ledebouria and Resnova, and Venter also sees them as distinct, but closely related genera. There are distinct morphologies between them and genetics are still inconclusive. Aaron --- On Tue, 10/5/10, Nhu Nguyen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: seems to be a lot of confusion with this thing called "Drimia maculata" on the web, especially when you go through Google search. A lot of people are growing this one and I have seen it widespread in many nurseries. According to some of the reliable databases I've search through, this taxon does not exist. This issue is the same with "Ledebouria pauciflora" and "Resnova megaphylla". These names circulate in the horticultural world but there is no real taxonomic status connected to them. There is a *Drimiopsis maculata *but that's now been renamed as *Ledebouria petiolata*. http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/index.php/… Ledebouria maculata is a completely different thing, now accepted as Drimia indica.There is still a lot of confusion with this whole Drimia-Ledebouria complex and a lot more work will need to be done to sort them all out. Perhaps the experts out there can tell you what your plant in cultivation really is.