Ficus macrophylla

[Austinpalm]

I purchased the plant shown in the spring of 2008 as F. macrophylla. However, some discussions on another website have led me to question if it is indeed, macrophylla. It has grown well since then and handled 28F without any problem.

Any thoughts?

[fastfeat]

This is Ficus rubiginosa (Rusty-leaf Fig), or possibly the very similar, but less common, F. watkinsoniana (Watkins Fig). The amount of tomentum on the bottom of leaves varies widely, from little, as yours, to much more.

F. macrophylla has much larger leaves.

Edited September 16, 2009 by fastfeat

[Austinpalm]

Thanks for the reply Fastfeat.

I was really hoping it was macrophylla, but at least both of the species you mentioned are somewhat cold hardy as well.

[mnorell]

Clay--

I wouldn't give up hope completely as it's difficult to tell when these trees are small, the foliage can be variable and there can be some overlap, and yes the rusty indumentum is variable, but once these trees are going strong it's really pretty easy to tell them apart. When they're big, big mature adults there's no confusing them, as macrophylla is very wide-spreading with big buttressed roots rather than aerial roots/trunks. F. rubiginosa will throw aerial roots even in somewhat dry climates like Southern California, where macrophylla generally will not. If you've lived around these two species for a long time, the differences, whether tangible or not, become engraved in your mind and there's no confusing them.

In the absence of figs and a mature specimen, there are still some major foliar differences, namely in leaf-dimensions and petiole-length. The leaf dimensions of both species are pretty variable, but in general for rubiginosa are only about 6-10cm long x 4-8cm broad, petioles 1-3cm long; macrophylla by contrast is roughly 20x12cm with petioles 10-15cm long. Here are some shots of what I bought as F. macrophylla, you can see the huge leaves with their long petioles, this is what immediately shows that it's not F. rubiginosa.

There's always the possibility that both yours and mine are some completely different species from the two we're discussing, there are many, many Ficus species and they can be terribly confusing. And as fastfeat mentioned even just in Australia there are others with similarities, such as F. watkinsiana.

I hope that helps!

[fastfeat]

Michael, Clay--

Agreed about the variability of foliage dimensions, tomentum presence. This is especially true of juvenile trees, especially ones grown from seed. It may take a couple of years to get truly representative foliage that makes positive ID possible. Compounding the issue, growing trees grown in filtered light and freezing back before trees develop adult foliage can delay ID confirmation.

Michael--

I'm not positive that your tree is a F. macrophylla either, for the reasons above. However, the long petioles, thicker stems, and long "candles" suggest that it may be. Hopefully it makes it through the winter without damage. By next season, ID should be more conclusive.

Edited September 19, 2009 by fastfeat