Connarus wightii

  • admin_shalini
  • Connarus
Connarus wightii Hook.f., Fl. Brit. India 2: 51 1876. (Syn: Connarus ritchiei Hook.f.; Rourea sclerocarpa Wight & Arn. ex Hook.f.);
.
Kurkuti;
.
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ID-1-2.JPG
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ID-2-8.JPG
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Harpephyllum%20caffrum.JPG
Tree / Flower for ID – indiantreepix | Google Groups : 8 posts by 4 authors. Attachments (3)
Attached herewith photos of a shrub/tree with flowers / fruits for ID.
To me it appears like Harpephyllum caffrum or Kaffir Plum from African origin. Pl. confirm.
The photos were taken at Amboli forest (Konkan region) in last month (Jan.’2009).

I don’t believe that this is Harpephyllum caffrum. Shots of the foliage and tree would be appreciated.

Fruits look like of Harpephyllum caffrum, needs cofirmation. The leaves should resemble somewhat like neem. A photograph showing leaves
would be appreciated

Any chance of getting better foliage, tree shots? I don’t think that this is Harpephyllum:
Link1
Link2
Maybe Spondias?

Here is a reply from Oikos: “Connarus wightii…   “

One link I could find for Connarus wightii: http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/database/?q=node/122 (leaf charcterstics).
It is called locally as Kurkuti as per link: http://kolhapur.nic.in/KolhapurGazetteer/phy_forests.html

Thanks for the additional pictures. I was thinking that foliage looks somewhat like Litchi; I am not familiar with Connarus or its family. It is decidedly not Harpephyllum.

I guess Connarus monocarpus L. !

Yes!

.

ID please. Date & time: 01 NOV 12 10:46 AM
Habitat: semi-evergreen and evergreen forest
Habit: liana, matures to about 1 foot dia cross-section, reaches about 20 m high (just a guess)
The rust-coloured tender leaflets stand out in midst of other green foliage; I find them along pathways as well as in core forest – never had the chance of getting to see flower / fruit. Another interesting aspect is the random arrangement

Please ignore the 2nd picture … it does not belong to this plant.
Mistakenly added because it was in sequence of my flickr uploads.

This looks like Entada rheedei.

This climber is Connarus wightii…

For reference check below link…
http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/getImage.do?imageBarcode=K000691056

Many thanks … for the response. I have a feeling it is not Entada rheedii. 

In this vine, we see fluted texture – I have not seen it in Entada.
This must be Connarus wightii …

I’ve always thought this plant was a Connaraceae. 

In the Floras the number of leaflets given for Connarus wightii is 3 – 5, which means I or 2 pairs and the end one. The Matheran plant in the pictures commonly has 5 or 6 pairs and a terminal leaflet and sometimes there are 7 pairs! Leaflets are opposite, sub opposite and sometimes alternate.
Is it possible that the plant can be variable to this extent? Or could it be another species?

Interesting ! Am familiar with Connarus monocarpus [C. wightii].
Dr. Almeida in his ‘Flora of Maharashtra’ & Yadav and Sardesai in their ‘Flora of Kholapur District’ both describe it as “a much branched Shrub“.

It’s very interesting. Something that’s been puzzling me for years because the plant is common at Matheran. Some authors have named it as Rourea santaloides, which also isn’t an exact match.
See archive

As there are no flowers and fruits, the wild guess is it is Connarus wightii which occurs in Matheran. Please consult Flora of India, Volume 5 published in 2000

I am eagerly waiting for flowers and fruits.
My question is whether the large discrepancy observed in the leaf form compared with the described sp Connarus wightii, is acceptable.

 
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/IMG_0063-1.JPG
For ID 060809ET 2 : 6 posts by 5 authors. Attachments (1)
Local people called it as Pit pity.
This  picture I took at Amboli on 31/7/2009 .
I checked it physically, it seems it is fruit not flower.
It is a Shurb.

This looks like Rourea sp. (Connaraceae)

… seems to be right. Check out Google- Images. 1 or 2 pix of similar flowers/fruits there.

May be Rourea santaloides?

I guess Connarus wightii Hook.f. looks close.

Though the leaf image is not so clear it looks like rougher and looks close to Connarus wightii as suggested earlier. Opinion from members please !

.

References: