As described by Klackenberg (2001): \"Branches glabrous to hairy, usually with few conspicuous lenticels. Leaf blade usually oblong or elliptic to ovate, sometimes broadly ovate to rarely obovate or almost orbicular, 2-11 × 1.5-5.5 cm, almost truncate to usually tapering at base, usually acuminate at apex, glabrous to hairy below or on both sides or along veins only; petiole 3-10 mm long, glabrous to hairy. Internodes of cymes 5-15 mm long; pedicels 3-7 mm long, usually hairy; bracts 2-7 mm long. Calyx lobes narrowly ovate to elliptic, 5.7-12.8 × 2.7-5.4 mm, with non-reflexed margins. Corolla tube (9-)15-25 mm long; lobes (20-)25-44 × (8-)14-26 mm. Corona lobes 6-9 mm high, entire. Staminal cone 3.2-5.2 mm high; anthers 2.7- 4.5 mm. Translator spathe ovate, 1.3-1.8 mm long, acute at the apex. Style 1.3-3.4 mm long; style including style head 4.8-6.8 mm long. Follicles (5-)7-9 × 1-3 cm, glabrous to finely pubescent. Seeds 5-8 mm long; hairs 2-3 cm long.\"

C. madagascariensis occurs naturally along the western coast of Madagascar, but prefers the Northern, wetter part of the coast. C. grandiflora on the other hand prefers a drier climate. Where the two species overlap, C. madagascariensis is thought to outcompete C. grandiflora due to its preference of a wetter climate (Kriticos et al, 2003).

The latex from Cryptostegia species has been used for the production of rubber in both India and Madagascar, however the hybridization of the two species (Cryptostegia grandiflora and C. madagascariensis) doubles the latex content (Polhamus et al, 1934; as seen in Klackenberg, 2001). In Madagascar the fibres have been used for making threads and ropes for the manufacture of nets and fishing line (Jumelle, 1907; as seen in Klackenberg, 2001). Its poisonous properties have been used in committing suicide for religious purposes (Choux, 1931; as seen in Klackenberg, 2001) and for medicinal practices (Jumelle, 1907, Boiteau, 1986; as seen in Klackenberg, 2001). It is however usually cultivated as an ornamental and for rubber production (Starr et al, 2003).

Cryptostegia madagascariensis is distributed along the whole western part of Madagascar. It is found from sea level up to 700m altitude. It grows in dry forest, savannah, tsingy, disturbed grazed grassland and on lateritic soil and sand, often on river beds, and usually in full sunlight (Klackenberg, 2001). C. madagascariensis is found from Tulear in the south west to Diego Suarez in the extreme north, in areas receiving 400-2,400 mm (16-94 in) annually (McFadyen and Harvey, 1991; as seen in Starr et al, 2003).

Cryptostegia madagascariensis flowers in Madagascar from July to May (Klackenberg, 2001). In Australia, flowering occurs from Decemeber to February (Northern Territory Government, 2010), although in Brazil flowering of C. madagascariensis occurs mainly in November and December. Flowers open during the day and last about 24 hours. They are self-compatible, however self-pollination does not occur. Once pollinated, two fruit result per flower. Bees should be the main pollinators. Fruit is exhibited all year round, but more frequently in January and February. The fruit take four months to reach the maximum size (average of 6.44 cm length, 2.45 cm height and 3.4 cm width), and 210 days for opening. Each fruit averages around 96.5 seeds. Seeds from closed fruit showed 93% germination under those conditions (Vieira et al, 2004).

Cryptostegia madagascariensis is originally dispersed by people for rubber production (Starr et al, 2003).Cryptostegia madagascariensis is originally dispersed by people for ornamental purposes (Starr et al, 2003).

Preventative measures: A Risk Assessment of Cryptostegia madagascariensis for Hawaii and other Pacific islands was prepared by Dr. Curtis Daehler (UH Botany) with funding from the Kaulunani Urban Forestry Program and US Forest Service. The alien plant screening system is derived from Pheloung et al. (1999) with minor modifications for use in Pacific islands (Daehler et al. 2004). The result is a score of 13 and a recommendation of: \"Likely to cause significant ecological or economic harm in Hawaii and on other Pacific Islands as determined by a high WRA score, which is based on published sources describing species biology and behavior in Hawaii and/or other parts of the world.\"

Physical control: Starr et al (2003) suggest that small plants can be pulled by hand or dug out with the fruits bagged and disposed of properly, however the milky sap should be avoided. da Silva et al (2008) however do not recommend mechanical removal due to it being uneconomical for larger specimen, and that the sap is toxic.

Chemical control: Starr et al (2003) note that there are several chemical listed in Australia for Cryptostegia spp. control. Grazon DS, Banvel, Brushoff, Tordon, Velpar, Graslan, and 2, 4-D are all used, however as Cryptostegia grandiflora is the species causing most concern it is not known how effective these might be on C. madagascariensis. In Hawai'i, Garlon has be used in cut stump treatments as well as mechanical removal. Foliar spraying has been shown to be most effective on smaller plants. Basal bark spraying is not effective on multi-stemmed plants, however with singular-stemmed plants, the spray should be completely around the base. Root application has also been used in Australia, however this method is a non-selective method. It has however been found to useful by farmers that were far off in the bush and needed a lightweight method for controlling individual outliers (Starr et al, 2003).

Biological: There seems to be a few biological agents that can be used against C. madagascariensis. A new Schizomyia species was described by Gagne & Marohasy (2007) that causes galls on rubber vines. Although originally sort after as a bio-control agent for Cryptostegia grandiflora in Australia, galls caused by the species were also seen on C. madagascariensis, and thus could be used in management efforts. Huwer & McFadyen (1999) investigated the use of the hawk moth (Nephele densoi) as a potential bio-control agent in Australia against C. grandiflora and the possible effectiveness of the its Australian counterpart N. subvaria. They showed that N. densoi is capable of establishing on both Cryptostegia species, however the specificity of N. subvaria meant that it could not establish on either species. N. densoi however could be a potential bio-agent. The rubber vine rust Maravalia cryptostegiae and the rubber vine moth Euclasta whalleyi have proven to be the best methods to be used in Australia. These however do not out-right kill individuals, but cause adnormal defoliation, creating an energy sink which leads to reduced seed production (Starr et al, 2003).