Euphorbia candelabrum Trémaux ex Kotschy, Mitt. Geogr. Ges. Wien 1: 169 1857. ;
Euphorbiaceae Fortnight : ID please : Mumbai garden : MN 17: 1 image. 2 posts by 2 authors.
Kindly id this Euphorbia
Place : Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai.
It looks like Euphorbia candelabrum Kotschy, if there is a woody cylindrical basal stem, which is not visible in the photo.
Feb2015sk09 Hooghly – Euphorbia sp. ID please : 8 posts by 4 authors. Attachments (7)
I photographed this tree on the 21st Dec., 2013.
The tree was found on roadside, cultivated/planted. As can be guessed from the photograph about 20 ft or more tall.
Euphorbia antiquorum L.? Or since it is more than 4m tall tree it is E. ingens ? Or something other?
A new set, photographed today. (6.2.15)
This is not E. antiquorum. It is probably an introduced plant. It may be E. ingens, but the fruits are dark pink, whereas in E. ingens they are green or greenish yellow. It could also probably be E. candelabrum. I am not sure.
Thank you very much for taking care of this tree. I have full faith on you and … I have also read the note of … about the limitation of identifying a species only by images. I fully agree.
I have one last request –
though Roxburgh’s Euphorbia arborescens is considered as a synonym of E. antiquorum L., Flora Indica informs it can grow to a pretty large tree, with a round distinct trunk.
Secondly, Haines informs, in his “Botany of Bihar and Orissa”. Euphorbia trigona Haworth can grow upto 10-20 ft tree.
Can you please tell me if there is any chance of this species to be E. arborescens Roxb. or E. trigona Haw.?
This plant cannot be E. antiquorum or any of its synonyms because of the basic difference shown by the inflorescence here. Please examine the above close up of inflorescences. The cyathia here are in diads, with dichotomous branches and each of them is peduncled. However, in E. antiquorum, the cyathia are usually in triads with the central cyathium sessile and the two lateral one peduncled.
This is unlike any Indian Euphrobias.
Thank you very much Sir for explaining beautifully why this species can not be E. antiquorum. Now I think I can also reject E. lacei Craib, where cyathium is solitary or in dichasium of three cyathia.