Moraceae » Ficus arnottiana



commonly known as: Indian rock fig, rock pipal, waved-leaved fig tree, wild pipal • Hindi: bassari, palhi, पारस पिपल paras pipal, pilkhan, पिंपली pimpli • Kannada: kaadaarasa, kadu aswatha, kalla aswattha • Malayalam: amakanniyam, kallal, kallarayal • Malayalam: amakanniyam, kallarayal • Marathi: पायर payar, कडक पाईर kadak payer, पिपळी pipli • Sanskrit: परीस parisah, प्लावक plavaka, प्लवंग plavanga • Tamil: கொடியரசு kotiyarasu • Telugu: కల్లరావి kallaravi, కొండ రావి konda ravi


Photographed at Bassein fort, Maharashtra.


Tabish, this photo does not show the flowers (figs) at close shot; you may choose to not put it up at FOI; can wait for a better photo to come by.

Dear Dinesh,
 Since the time of putting up Banyan tree picture on FOI, I have been perpetually confused as to whether I should put figs on the site or not. You must have noticed that Peepal is missing.
One point of view is that since they do not have any visible flowers, probably they do not fit into the theme of the site.
Another point of view is that since these trees are so common and so much part of life that leaving them out makes the site looks incomplete.
I have been oscillating between these two. Also, I feel that the second view might lead to including all "leaves only" plants on FOI, like "Money Plant" etc. After all, the site is about flowers!
What is your opinion? Maybe that will help me in deciding a proper course.

This is a terrible conflict of thoughts.
(wish you had named your site "Flora of India" !!)


FOR NOW:
To come out of the viscious circle of thoughts, the site can be without all such flora which do not have conspicuous flowers.
... in other words those that our eyes can not percieve or mentally visualize as flowers.

It may then rule out all those:
1) solitary flowers that are less than X mm ("X" to be decided)
2) flowers contained in different structural form, like figs
3) ... some other forms that I do not know yet.


IN FUTURE (read near future !! if feasible):
Another thought (wish) is thinking ... of FOI evolving to "Flora of India".
Will have to possess another domain name, earlier re-directing to the new.
(which certainly will be a mammoth site, will ask for yet Herculean efforts of re-structuring the site, will most probably be one of a kind in our country for a long time to come)
-- in which case, will need to store all such present invalid records for later use.
If "Flora of India" takes birth, it will be more robust platform; beneficial to people from all walks of life.


In short, for now, the decision can be very plain - exclude figs.

Dinesh, thanks for your thoughtful reply. Some distinct directions have emerged from it.

For my part, I wouldn't have thought of naming the site/domain Flora of India - to me it sounds too botanical. I feel it wouldn't have so much popular appeal with that name - maybe I am wrong. I visualize two books lying in a bookshop, one called "Flowers of India" and one "Flora of India" - my suspicion is that there is a very large section of people who will never pick up "Flora of India" (without even knowing what is inside). For example, I feel, somebody mad about gardening, may also not pick up "Flora of India". Thats just for the name, nothing about the content.

I have another thought - maybe we can cheat a bit and put all those plants which have SOME kind of flowers, even less than X mm, or hidden inside a fig. That way we can include ALL trees - that should be an important advantage.

I agree with you that Flora will be much more comprehensive - but, as of now, it also looks more scary! Flowers of India looks more manageable.

I am convinced by your thoughts; quite true that some things known by some other names make us look at them differently.

All flowers are happy now !!! All of them have their place in FOI !!  

Regards.