ficus brachypoda and ficus obliqua, are they the same?

[Jamie]

hi people

after having a rather interesting coversation with alpineart about figs Ian brought up a very interesting topic of the QLD small leaf and NT rock fig and the possibility of them being the same genera with only slight differences in cultivar or variations. doing some recent research there is also links between them two and the ficus rubignosa with similar only slight differences.

from what i can see is the only things that really determine the different cultivars is where they are located, brachyponda moreso found in WA all up the coast lines. NT rock fig being F. brachypoda aswell. then ficus obliqua var. obliqua being queensland and NSW which also has other variations but have now the other variations have been changed to different cultivars. Eugonoides hasnt even come in to play with the research as it seems it has become defunct. and then from norther NSW south is ficus Rubiginosa which also has a lot of similarities to both obliqua and brachypoda.

in saying this i beleive that these three to four figs are all the same genera with slight variations. i dont know if it is a fact or not but i would like to get some testing done to see if this is the case, i would like to get others opinion on all of this though aswell, i have two out of the three so called genera just not the brachypoda variety but would love to see some comparisons to it. i have taken samples of my PJ and QSL leaves to compare and found minimal differences apart from slight leaf shape and hair on the PJ. trunk characteristics are very similar and growth habits.

my references are from various sites with a lot to link, as i get things rolling with this discussion i will link them up to this page when i find them all again.

please keep an open mind with this, i will get the links up of the info i have found asap.

jamie

[Jamie]

ok here is a link that shows that obliqua is a misapplied name to brachypoda.

http://florabase.calm.wa.gov.au/search/current/1751

this next one is a PDF that show how they are classified in sub devisions and are supposed to be categorized and identifed by wasps and other factors (i beleive)

http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/__data/ass ... Dix125.pdf

and another PDF that shows brachypoda as obliqua. this link also states rubiginosa as brachypoda and obliqua.

http://www.chah.gov.au/chah/apc/interim/Moraceae.pdf

[Joel]

Hi Jamie,

F. rubiginosa and F. obliqua are very different. I cant comment on brachypoda as i do not know this species.

But botany and botanical nomenclature are very difficult subjects Jamie. Some plants look almost identical to the naked eye and they aren't even in the same genus. E.g. Woollsia pungens http://www.chah.gov.au/cgi-bin/phtml?ph ... o_no=21160
and Epacris pulchella http://australian-insects.com/lepidopte ... chella.jpg

Where as some genera are so varied, that the species in them look nothing alike. Look at the Euphorbia species and how varied they are. Here are 2 completely different looking plants in the same genus: http://www.getnet.net/~richarde/cactuss ... horbia.JPG
http://www.ppws.vt.edu/scott/weed_id/cy ... ge8-15.jpg

Either way, there are professionals with degrees out there sorting out how to classify things and there is next to nothing you or me can do to change it. They use DNA sequencing, morphology and heaps of other information before debating with other professionals about how to name things. So whilst the accepted botanical names are the 3 separate species, that is what i will use when discussing them.

Joel

[Jamie]

gday joel,

thanks for responding. the discussion i had with Ian was more so to do with brachypoda and obliqua and whether or not they are the same or not, or if brachypoda which is commonly know as NT rock fig, also classified as platypoda and obliqua commonly know as QLD small leaf. Ian's idea was that the rock fig could possibly be that of the small leaf or vice versa and to whether or not it originated.

i completley agree that it is a difficult subject. i havent checked out your links yet but definately will be, what i am wondering is why brachypoda is considered variants of obliqua and the same with rubiginosa with a variant obliqua as per the last link i showed.

im no scientist by all means but what i have read from scientists that have written the stuff on morphology and dna shows the links betweens these trees.
which could possibly be just that, links between the trees and similarites.

im gonna take a look at ya links now

[Ash]

Hi Jamie,

Ficus obliqua, Ficus brachypoda, Ficus rubiginosa and Ficus platypoda are presently regarded as different species in the list by CHAH (Council Heads of Australian Herbaria) that you posted, it was based on the revision of the Ficus subgenus Urostigma section Malvanthera by Dale Dixon published in 2001 in Australian Systematic Botany.

The listing of F. obliqua varieties as synonyms of F. brachypoda does not mean that the current F. obliqua varieties are synonyms of F. brachypoda . What it means is that in the past- before they were studied by Dixon- they were sometimes considered the same taxon with multiple infraspecific taxon.

For interest sake the Queeensland Ficus (subgenus Urostigma section Malvanthera) spp. on the east coast of Queensland:

Ficus obliqua- smaller hairless lance shapped leaves, small 1 cm round figs, hairless, only very short stalk
Ficus rubiginosa- lance to oval shapped leaves, hairy (use a lense), small 1-2 cm round figs, hairy, 0.5-1 cm stalk
Ficus watkinsiana- large glossy oval to lance shaped leaves, large 3-4 cm globular figs
Ficus macrophylla- large bicolored oval- leaves, round 2-3 cm figs, matted hairs under leaves
Ficus pleurocarpa- very large oval-lance shaped glossy leaves, large bannana shaped figs
Ficus crassipes- very large rounded leaves, bannana shaped figs
Ficus destruens- large lance shaped rusty haired leaves, oval figs with open ostiole with lips either side(hole)

Ficus brachypoda, Ficus atricha, Ficus platypoda, Ficus subpuberula, Ficus lilliputiana are all from western Aus or central northern parts of Aus.
cheers
Ash

[Jamie]

cheers ash. that clears things up some. that technical stuff i linked i misinterpretted.

jamie

[Ash]

Yes a list is so hard to work from- what we need are some photos.
cheers
ash

[Jamie]

to right there ash, to be able to see is very different to reading.

it would be good to get some NT "rock figs" samples and QLD "small leaf" samples and get them tested. right down to the core. but on saying that how are we to know that is what they are.