Is this Erythrina variegata ?



Thanks and regards.

Hmm... interesting plant!
The buds do resemble Erythrina. But Erythrinas have trifoliate leaves, and in this picture the leaves in the background don't look 3-leaved.

Righto!!
I got confused there.

I found this tree at Tableland, Panchgani.

Caesalpiniaceae » Acrocarpus fraxinifolius

commonly known as: acrocarpo, Australian ash, Indian ash, Kenya coffeeshade, mundani, pink cedar, red cedar, shingle tree • Bengali: mundani • Hindi: मंडानिया mandania, मंधानी mandhani, मुंडानी OR मुंदानी mundani • Kannada: belangi, hantige • Manipuri: mun, mundani • Marathi: टोकफळ tokphal • Tamil: மலைக்கொன்றை malai-k-konrai

Identification courtesy: Ajinkya Gadave

at Tableland, Panchgani

Dinesh, is Caesalpiniaceae a separate family or an older name of Fabaceae? I am not able to get a convincing answer.

I have long stopped adding any plants to Caesalpiniaceae, Mimosaceae, Papilionaceae.
That is because, these are classified as families only by few authorities, the Cronquist system, for instance.
Otherwise their status is subfamilies within Fabaceae (formerly known as Leguminosae)

However, just as you, I am always surprised to see them appearing as families, for some of the well-known species, that too at authoritative sites like eFlora, GRIN, ILDIS, etc.

I put this A. fraxinifolius in Caesalpiniaceae, only because I found it so in FFOS.

Your comments.

That reminds me that Asclepiadaceae has been absorbed into Apocynaceae. However for me, knowing that a plant belongs to the milkweed family brings to mind certain features, like oozing milky sap. By putting it into Oleander family, that information is lost. So, I do wish Asclepiadaceae remained a separate family. I have been using Asclepiadaceae for this very reason.
Same way, I think Caesalpiniaceae had some features.
Of course for botanists, nothing is lost - they have all the separate features in subfamilies. But introducing subfamilies on FOI will complicate it unnecessarily for the learned layperson, who is the most frequent visitor to the site.
I guess, it is better to be botanically accurate, and not bemoan the lost information.
What say you?

By the way, I lost my heart to the other picture of this tree (with the parrot), and so put it on the site as the additional picture.

Yes, it makes sense ... everyone of us would rather know a plant for its features. Therefore many of the well-known and valued plants are better retained in their earlier known families.

Thanks for the appreciation, Tabish ... I re-visited my photograph to check out its beauty!!

You see, I had put the photograph with the thought that - it does not matter if the bird looks blurred ... I had clicked about a dozen shots !!