I've noticed that there are a lot of requests to identify unknown fig varieties. And that got me thinking, why not write a dichotomous key? They work great for other plant species. But I need some help. What general characteristics should be included?
Breba  vs no breba
fig color
fig shape
fig size
fig eye size
fig (inside color)
leaf size
number of lobes
edge of leaf serrations 

What else am I missing?

John

Location of were it was first found?
Time of year that fruits are ripe?
Does it need wasp to fruit?
Thats all I can think of....

Good ones, thanks! - John

Redness of the leaf stems is another clue that can limit the search field.   

What about "stem length of fig"? Short vs Long

I don't want to discourage you, but if it was that easy, it would have been done.

You're going to need fruit shape, size, soil type. probably fertilizer used, water quality. breed of neighbor's dog, sun/shade, and much more.

Jon is right!  I have both Condit and Starnes studies in PDF on my computer, and I'm still lost at ID!  They don't include Climate, dog, fertilizer, sun/shade or any of that!

Suzi

I've used a lot of dichotomous keys, and even between distinct species, it can be difficult to differentiate between minute traits. And figs are far too variable for this to work effectively.

Practically speaking, you'd need a really good fig person or two to put it together. That would take hours and hours and hours of work over many months. And then it would have to be distributed. Would that be for free? If it's not, the market for such a work probably would be very small.

In fact, having a key might make general fig identification worse especially in the hands of less experienced people. "But the key says...."  Think of all the unknowns that would be keyed, falsely indentified, and then dispersed under now faulty names. Oy.

Sorry,

signed:  Debbie Downer.

How about a key of just figs that are called by more than one name?

I think that it is correct that many of the morphological aspects are quite variable depending on environmental conditions (as mentioned above).   There are some resources that might help one who is interested in developing a modified key for personal use.  Perhaps someday a detailed and practical key could work on a larger scale for growers and collectors.   I have not had time to work on it.

The other component of a successful key is to define the parameters clearly.  This would avoid inconsistent data.

   Having said that, there are some excellent resources to help.   I will list them below.

1)  Fig Characteristics Useful in the Identification of Varieties by Ira J. Condit in Hilgardia, A Journal of Agricultural Science published by the California Agricultural Experiment Station. 14; 1 (May 1941):1-69.

2)   Descriptors for fig from IPGRI  This is an excellent outline of the many morphological characteristics of fig.  For most of our purposes, the list could be slimmed down a bit.   http://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/bioversity/publications/pdfs/907_Descriptors_for_Fig__Ficus_carica_.pdf?cache=1344735592 

3)  The second document is one that I found more recently.   This one talks about other aspects of fig description that have not been used much before but are apparently very accurate- probably more than the regular person would be willing to handle.  Very interesting nonetheless.
http://www.academicjournals.org/ajb/PDF/pdf2011/19Dec/Darjazi.pdf   

I will continue this one.

11. Is there nectar/sap/juice flowing out of the eye? If no, skip to question 17.
12. Is the nectar/sap/juice flowing out of the eye delicious on its own?
13. Is the nectar/sap/juice thick and gooey and sticky or subtle liquid?
14. Is the nectar/sap/juice white or red?
15. Is it actually red nectar/sap/juice or it just looks like it because it's on the backdrop of another color?
16. Does the nectar/sap/juice drop from the fig to the ground or ooze out and stick to the side of the fig?

Thanks all for the ideas and comments. I never said I thought it would be easy... A dichotomous key is not meant to replace an experts opinion, but more act as a tool to assist in identification or help narrow down the possibilities. 

Let's say one of the name tags fell off one of my known plants. I know it is one of 15 varieties that I have growing, so a DK may be help in that situation. Or, if someone is looking for certain characteristics in a fig (late, red flesh, large fruit, dark skinned)they could use the DK to get a list of fig varieties that would suit their needs.

I'll start working on a simple key for say a dozen varieties, just to see what kind of trouble I can get into...And then expand from there.

John

Recent confusion about fig names by us posting abbreviations, makes me wonder, how a Desert King AKA DK could help?  ;-))

Suzi

Suzi, I totally agree. Newbie like me often confused on the abbreviations :)

Great point Suzi, I DK (didn't know) that.  haha

So, here is your wish list:  M, PR, PD, A and AS.

See?  Easy to keep it confusing!!  :-))  Just teasing!  You do have a big project and hopefully we will all benefit!

Suzi

Here is my first crack at the Dichotomous key. It is based on the ten figs listed in this journal: http://www.academicjournals.org/ajb/PDF/pdf2011/19Dec/Darjazi.pdf   

My Dichotomous key is written in Microsoft Excel, this is the link to it: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8cmP3XQLrPHUS1Rem1oMFZIS3c

You can input as little or as much info as you want and it will give you a result based on what you supplied. If it seems to work, I'll add data for other common figs. Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

Cheers,

John

Forgot to mention, be sure to down load the file, it wont work correctly in google docs. There are two tabs in the Excel spread sheet, one called "Input", please only enter in information on this page. Everything is in the metric system, I can change that if it is easier. There are columns that are hidden, keep them hidden, they contain the raw data for the drop down lists.

The other tab is where all the calculations take place. Numerical values are based on known averages. When you enter in a value, say for the fruit weight, it will calculate a match if the value is +/- 5% of the known weight. Do you think it should be increased to +/- 10%? Descriptive values must be exactly matched to be tallied.  Every time there is a match in your data with the known value, it is tallied. The more matches in data, the greater the likely hood of your unknown fig being will be matched to a known variety. Sorry, if that is not written clearly, I will try to explain it better if someone has questions. 

Again, thanks for looking!

John