Talk:Ficus

message: The photo does not show the characterisitc profil a fig has. -- Anon, 2003
The picture for Ficus lutea is not Ficus lutea. See other pictures at Ficus lutea.Michaelwild (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The leaves look wrong, too small for one thing.Hamamelis (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: It may be an idea to rename this page (on the genus) to Ficus, and use the name Fig to refer to the fruit, whic h is quite important in its own right. Imc 19:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fig vs Ficus 

message: "self-rooted Wild Willowleaf Fig". How exactly does it "self-root"? --Menchi 21:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-rooted 

message: "The Fig is one of the two sacred trees in Islam. Many Muslims consider Fig trees sacred." Is this sentence not redundant? Do only sum Muslims consider Fig tree sacred or is the second sentence quoted an exact duplicate of the first and as such is not need at all? Either way I think this needs to be modifed. -- Chiefhoser 13:17, 31 Jan 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacred Tree 

message: Shouldn't "Ficus Nitida" and "Ficus Hawaii" be added to the list?
Estr4ng3d 18:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ficus nitida is a synonym of F. benjamina. I can't find any authoritative references to a species F. hawaii (it isn't listed by e.g. GRIN or USDA) - MPF 09:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing species? 

message: The article says that "fig" is the other sacred tree.  This is an article about figs though!  What's the other one?
:Date Palm I'd suppose... but I'm not 100% sure. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hehe, don't "suppose", you're wrong. The other one is the Olive, mentioned together with fig in the same verse in Quran, in a sura (chapter) named after the figs (At-Tin). However, I believe several other plants are mentioned in the Quran as well. Like Pomegranate. 88.178.225.196 (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam's other sacred tree 

message: I've been trying to clarify this point for some time, and even this article seems a tad ambiguous to me.  Could someone please tell me once and for all, with out a doubt, are the figs typically eaten by humans full of dead bugs?  I mean, obviously not FULL, and anything having a few bugs in it is not a big deal, and I understand fig growers are probably a bit sensitive abou this, but please... there's like a whole bunch of tiny dead bugs in those things, isn't there?  --Elgaroo 19:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Though they're not actually "full" of them and most commercial figs are parthenocarpic these days so it's more like the odd fig wasp that made the fatal mistake to visit the wrong tree. But don't worry - fig wasps do not carry human diseases, and in dried figs, the extreme sugar concentration will likely kill off whatever plant pathogens they might harbor. Consider them adding just a little extra CRRRRUNCH! No, seriously - these wasps are VERY tiny and you won't even notice them if you don't actually go looking. Boukha, the famous fig spirit from Tunisia, also has them floating around in it occasionally; the insects are smaller than a fig seed. I consider them a free bit of protein, making an already wholesome fruit even better... Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification: Full of bugs? 

message: I deleted the following nonsense:
"It is often said that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a fig tree from the book of Genesis for its large leaves and also the nature of the fig itself."
The book of Genesis does NOT say:
- that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a fig tree
- that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil had large leaves
- that Adam and Eve used leaves from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to cover themselves
I wonder to what extent can people possible misinterpret the Bible.
06:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm pretty sure I've read that the phrase usually translated as "forbidden fruit" in English would be "forbidden fig" if translated more precisely from the original Hebrew. I've talked to Theology and Biblical Archeology Majors. You might want to make sure that your interpretations are reconcilable with the original Old Testament language rather than relying entirely on the English. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted

message: micheal moore ran a fig tree in a election, should it get mention in this artical? --137.219.16.125 18:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its covered in Rodney P. Frelinghuysen; it's more relevant to that article. --Bazzargh (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  micheal moore 

message: The article es:Matapalo has a lot of interesting information worth incorporating into this article.  A Babel Fish translation can be found here, but it would better if someone bilingual could incorporate the details. 66.167.253.184 04:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matapalo 

message: The text currently has a passage:
: There is evidence that figs were among the first cultivated crop, because they were of a mutation which could not reproduce normally.
However, Zohary and Hopf fail to mention this "mutation" in their authoritative work, Domestication of plants in the Old World. To the contrary, they mention that in many cases domesticated figs will interbreed with wild ones -- as long as the right species of wasps are present. The closest this book comes to confirming this assertion is in their discussion of the Sycamore fig, which they note no longer propigates sexually in Egypt due to an absense of the proper species of wasp -- yet they believe was the principal area where the Sycamore Fig was domesticated. I'm tempted to just delete this sentence unless someone can provide a cite for it; consider this fair warning. -- llywrch 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add source (the original one). The issue is a bit more complicated. But it still seems that humans deliberately cared for these trees and may have planted them. Timing-wise, it extends the start of the first vestiges of agriculture (i.e., clearing a small patch of land for planting) just a little bit backwards; the interesting thing is that dedicated fig cultivation seems to predate dedicated cultivation (i.e., not just throwing some seeds in a corner to let them grow) of cereals. Agriculture seems to have evolved in 3 steps: 1) spreading seeds of foodplants, but without any further care - simply propagating them 2) what we have here, i.e. becoming a bit more choosy what you sow or plant and where, and perhaps scaring the birds away at harvest time, but still no significant change in land use 3) true agriculture, i.e. change in land use from letting stuff grow where it seems to grow well to land clearing and tillage. Step 1 may have occurred as early as 23 millennia ago. Step 2 was in the 10th millennium BC. Step 3 followed perhaps a millennium or two later; the transition from 2 to 3 was a main "driver" of the Neolithic Revolution. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mutation in figs 

message: Could anyone add some information about the lifecycle of male fig wasps inside the figs? Promethus6 03:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the Ficus-Wasp Relationship 

message: Anyone know what an olynth is? As in "The first of the two is small and is called breba; the breba figs are olynths". Justinleif 23:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it seems to refer to the first-crop (small) fruits whereas breba appears to be the name of the crop as a whole. But it needs expert attention. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: olynth?

message: I believe that Fig should redirect to Common Fig, not ficus. The common fig article is far more likely to be what the searcher is looking for than the ficus article. -Superbeecat 01:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree - that would be quite a bias. Every South Asian would probably be aware of 2 species of fig trees at least (F. carica and F. religiosa) for example. Then you have Aussies who likely would know the "bush tucker" sandpaper figs, and that these are more than one species, etc. But you do have a point; I have set a "see also" link in the fig fruit section of this here article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fig redirect 

message: List of species was expanded by me, based on taxa culled from Wikipedia. I did not try Wikispecies and don't suggest anyone should - even though it's improved massively in the last half-year or so, with a genus as fraught with synonymy as this it's still not reliable enough. In any case, several taxa are likely synonyms; the species list needs a look-over based on a reliable source. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert attention

message: The use of the ficus as ornamental plants might deserve a section.
The [Strangler Fig]] species have an unusual ecology with a symbiotic relationship with fruit bats and parasitic relationship with trees.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novangelis (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other ficus 

message: I added a 'dubious' template to this because, since methane is non-toxic, eating plants that have accumulated it can't be dangerous, can they? Or am I getting something wrong? Kay Dekker (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperaccumulation of methane? 

message: I changed the term dioecious to gynodiecious because it fitted better with the hermaphrodite and female statement.  To me at least, dioecious means male and female plants and not hermaphrodite and female plants, but I would have also liked to have seen the terminology used by Berg and Corner, which was not available to me.  Many authors use the qualifier "functionally" dioecious for figs, because the short-styled female flowers in the hermaphrodite flowers are usually consumed by the fig wasp larva.  This fig reproduction is complex but fascinating.  Pinethicket (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you haven't verified this with Corner & Berg, don't you think you should remove the reference?  Guettarda (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fig pollination and fig fruit 

message: I've read a few sources now...
 
 
 
...which state that figs are actually "inverted flowers". This Wikipedia article uses the terms false fruit and multiple fruit, but those articles don't really say anything as expressly clear as "inverted flowers". Perhaps from a botanical viewpoint, this is a very clear in the text of this article as written; however, from the lay perspective, I don't find it to be so.
Would it make sense to make this more clear for the lay reader? SueDonem (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the response. So I take it that I should discount the two sources above as erroneous when they each describe a fig as "inverted flowers". SueDonem (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figs are not fruits? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ficus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120202215506/http://waynesword.palomar.edu:80/dawkins.htm to http://waynesword.palomar.edu/dawkins.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Retrieves ok. --Zefr (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the description part it says "The specific identification of many of the species can be difficult, but figs as a group are relatively easy to recognize.[5]" Footnote 5 then says "Quigley's Plant identification 10:100." It is unclear what this source is (a book, a webpage, or some other). I can't find anything about it. Besides, my experience is that trying to identify ficusses isn't easy, as after hours of research I still don't know which one I have. Niels Koning23 (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it’s saying that you can usually tell it’s a fig, but not which species. A fairly common problem in botany. I’ve removed the mystery citation, snd left the statement as it stands, as it’s not particularly controversial.Darorcilmir (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Figs as a group are relatively easy to recognize' (with footnote 'Quigley's Plant identification 10:100').