I was at an old house up on Mt. Helix last week and they had what appeared to be a Ficus elastica, but the leaves were a lot longer than I remember seeing in F. elastica. Is it something else? Keep in mind that this is about a 30-50 year old tree in SoCal. It's in shade so maybe that's why?

Elastica leaves are usually wider than the one you show, but just as long.

I know weird huh. Not all the leaves were quite this long, I picked the longest one for the picture, but they were still a lot longer than I remember seeing on F. elastica. Anyone else with any ideas as to what it is, or have you seen this variety of F. elastica?

maybe its f.plastica.

Might just be some unique one-off. Did you take a bite to see if it was rubbery?

Matt--

Looks somewhat like "species" F. elastica, but tip doesn't look right. Any shots of the whole tree and/or fruits?

Did you get drizzle today?

Matt, I reviewed some Ficus materials and elastica is certainly the most probable. How large is the tree? Is it banyaning?

I am quite sure it is F. elastica. If it has aerial roots, definitely so.

Matt--

I noticed for years in SoCal a type of Ficus that may be exactly what you show, and I always used to scratch my head over it. But they were always rather large trees, obviously most having been planted in the '50s and '60s (or earlier). Often the leaves are smaller than what we think of as F. elastica, and definitely a bit narrower. They are still all over the place in L.A. and I'm sure around older areas of San Diego, but my guess is that it is a plain-vanilla form of F. elastica. I think that since the '60s this has been completely surpassed in popularity by the 'decora' and other forms of this species, and hence the form that was being planted in SoCal eventually fell out of the trade altogether. I suspect most people in the more recent time-frame have purchased F. elastica in the house-plant trade rather than the landscape trade, and those are the plants that went into the ground. Hence the bigger and often the red-leaf forms have now made their way into the ground everywhere.

I'm sure there are some of the form you mention in Balboa Park and at the SD Zoo, also if you cruise around Mission Hills or any of the other older areas on the south side of Mission Valley with large lots, you may see some. I'm sure I remember these in the Jungle Cruise at Disneyland as well, and that would hail from the same period in time. In any event, I have always loved these trees and their true identity has nagged me forever. I hope somebody with good knowledge of the Moraceae can weigh in here more definitively, though I'm sure you'd need to post a pic, or at least give measurements, of a fig from the tree to get a decent i.d.

I found an interesting pdf with good photos of some unusual cultivars at UH here.

Matt--

I noticed for years in SoCal a type of Ficus that may be exactly what you show, and I always used to scratch my head over it. But they were always rather large trees, obviously most having been planted in the '50s and '60s (or earlier). Often the leaves are smaller than what we think of as F. elastica, and definitely a bit narrower. They are still all over the place in L.A. and I'm sure around older areas of San Diego, but my guess is that it is a plain-vanilla form of F. elastica. I think that since the '60s this has been completely surpassed in popularity by the 'decora' and other forms of this species, and hence the form that was being planted in SoCal eventually fell out of the trade altogether. I suspect most people in the more recent time-frame have purchased F. elastica in the house-plant trade rather than the landscape trade, and those are the plants that went into the ground. Hence the bigger and often the red-leaf forms have now made their way into the ground everywhere.

I'm sure there are some of the form you mention in Balboa Park and at the SD Zoo, also if you cruise around Mission Hills or any of the other older areas on the south side of Mission Valley with large lots, you may see some. I'm sure I remember these in the Jungle Cruise at Disneyland as well, and that would hail from the same period in time. In any event, I have always loved these trees and their true identity has nagged me forever. I hope somebody with good knowledge of the Moraceae can weigh in here more definitively, though I'm sure you'd need to post a pic, or at least give measurements, of a fig from the tree to get a decent i.d.

I found an interesting pdf with good photos of some unusual cultivars at UH here.

I believe that I read (on an Indian site) that Ficus elastica is extinct in the wild. The only remaining trees (species and cultivars) are scattered across warm sites across the world (and in living rooms and greenhouses elsewhere).

That is truly disturbing that all of them could have been wiped out...didn't they exist in a large swath of Bengal?

I see also on tropicos that there are six described varieties...not sure whether they're considered currently valid, but in any case it might indicate there is enough morphological variation in the species to lead to these varietal subdivisions:

v. belgica

v. benghalensis

v. decora

v. karet

v. minor

v. odorata

v. rubra

Michael, That is an outstanding Link.Many anti-Ficus people out there. They do create many landscaping issues with the roots blowing up concrete. Hard to beat the tranquility under a big Banyan on a hot day.

Ficus Pseudopalma is a great specimen that is greatly underutilized.

Michael--

I'm not sure about how common F. elastica was/is in its native range. I just recall reading something about it at indiatreepix@googlegroups.com. (Be forewarned: if you join this group, there's a HUGE volume of emails that will require careful organizational skills to not become overwhelmed!)

Bubba--

I agree about most Ficus species, especially in SoCal, where imperfect sidewalks and curbs are not as well-tolerated as in SoFla. Many, many streets of 50-60' F. microcarpa 'Nitida' (hardly the most attractive species, but the best locally for providing the deepest shade) have been removed over the years, most commonly replaced with common crap myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica).

Edited September 11, 201015 yr by fastfeat

Michael, That is an outstanding Link.Many anti-Ficus people out there. They do create many landscaping issues with the roots blowing up concrete. Hard to beat the tranquility under a big Banyan on a hot day.

Ficus Pseudopalma is a great specimen that is greatly underutilized.

I am of the view that it is better to lose a banyan than a house. At my home in Calcutta, we are always waging a battle against an army of destructive ficus seedlings that take root in parapets, balconies, rooftops, pavements and walls. Left untreated they expose brick in 2-3 years.