It's a fig! Exact leaf shape and texture don't conform to any standard and are quite variable, especially with seedlings. I've seen that much variation on a single plant. The side views clinched it for me, since the stem, the petioles, and the new bud all have the fig gestalt. The major difference between fig and mulberry is size: fig has bigger, thicker growth all around. New mulberry leaves have two upward pointing bracts where the petiole connects to the stem.

jojosplants, feel free to express your opinion about my posts. I will never report anyone for openly expressing themselves on this forum like some forum members often do. Some get offended by other's free speech....and get people like Cecil booted off the forum. Some of us were GIVEN the free speech right to say what we want.......others of us FOUGHT and died for that right that we all enjoy, and still others of us served our country in uniform to PROTECT those rights. Funny how those who were GIVEN that right often want to take it away from others. They do not value free speech as much as those of us who have actually fought for and/or defended that right. Semper fi. Sorry if you disagree with science facts. Real science has nothing to do with FEELINGS or EMOTION and is definitely not a POPULARITY contest. It has to do with verifiable FACTS that anyone can reproduce for themselves. Most horticulturists today practice their trade more in an "Arts and Craft" like manner than as a real science. They believe that their way is the only way. I routinely use science to improve and develop new fig propagation methods and in the growing of my trees....not everyone does that. I have posted some of my findings that should be helpful to others. Funny how some people get a bee under their bonnet whenever I post anything that is not in their particular Fig Bible or in agreement with their past postings. IMLO, Al has misspoken at the beginning of this thread. Words have meaning and their context is very important. Putting up a Straw Man argument will not deter me from proving what I stated at the very beginning of this thread: [If you use a SLOW RELEASE fertilizer (such as Osmocote) for your container grown fig trees, you WILL NOT have a problem with EC/TDS (Electric Conductivity and Total Dissolved Solids). Also, you will never see a situation where a slow release fertilizer (applied as per directions), will EVER "make it unnecessarily difficult for plants to absorb water and the nutrients dissolved in water." That simply WILL NOT happen because of the physical design of the product.] Me stating that I am an experienced chemist is not boasting. It is a fact and is why I fully understand chemicals better than most people.....even Al. I understand both the PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL properties of matter. As a chemist I KNOW the significance and meaning of chemical testing and specifications. Chemist know how to both develop and interpret chemical data. Chemist know that data comes in several forms.....directly measured data, inferred data, and extrapolated data. Not all data is equally good or reliable......more about that later. I report my fig growing results not to boast or to brag.....but to let others know that I know a bit about what I am talking about and that I do not operate in a vacuum. I simply do not see ANY of the ill effects that are postulated by Al. I and many others get EXCELLENT results that cannot be denied or impugned by anyone's THEORY or beliefs. To say one will have a EC or TDS issue when using a slow release fertilizer is pure BALONEY!!! Only someone who does not understand both the "physical" and chemical properties of this type fertilizer would ever say something like that.......it is more than just the "chemical" nutrient ratio that dictates what will occur during its usage. Jodki, and others demanding a quick explanation from me. As, I've stated several times.....I will respond when I get a chance. Remember it has been several months since Al has promised to post his fig rooting method.......you know...the one that is THEORETICALLY much superior to the all others including the one's that I use. He whips out some pages from his horticulture Bible in seconds. Other pages take a long time to come forth. Why does it take so long to whip out his FIG propagation method that he BOASTS is much superior?? Seems like those FIG propagation pages would already be available in his Bible. IMO, he just can't back up his boastful THEORETICAL claims. No one who practices good science should have a problem with others challenging their work or boastful claims. I sure don't. Those who choose to read (with an open mind) what I will later post in this thread should see just where the facts lie. Sometimes I feel like Galileo who dared to disagree with the conventional wisdom of the leaders of his time. He dared to disagree with the Pope's Bible and was locked up for years by the Inquisition because he stated a scientific FACT..... that THE EARTH REVOLVED AROUND THE SUN. Everyone during his time was taught and KNEW that the earth was the center of the universe.....according to their particular Bible and the religious dogma of those times. He was taunted, ridiculed, laughed at, and locked up in prison for practicing good science. Today we all know who was right. Science always prevails in the end and he who laughs last laughs the hardest. Dan Semper Fi

Dave, guess you have it much easier that us San Franciscans. I would love some heat down here. Yeah, I'm impatient too. Thats why I bought this huge Excell fig tree with a fat 4-5 inch trunk for $180 in a 25 gallon. That thing was heavy. I have had good luck so far with my fig trees even in the 1st year. I think it has a lot to do with: 1. I mulch the ground very heavily with dried leaves all year round. 2. I dump banana peels and other potassium / phosphorus rich left overs into the ground around the trees. 3. I add a layer of manure on top of the soil. It seems like manure encourages the figs to come out when I do that. I read some where that the bible says if your fig tree does not produce figs, you should dung it, and it still does not, then discard it. So I figure, if the bible says it, there must be something behind the idea. I tried it, and it seems to work for me. 4. I add bone meal to the soil which is high it potassium and phosphorus. By the way, the fig is actually a flower, and not a fruit. So if you want more figs, you have to do things to get the fig tree to flower. Phosphorus, Postassium, and lots of sun light seems to encourage flowering.

First, the 'long' history' thing. In Junior schools (up to 11 years) history used to be a bit hit-and-miss. One term kids might have studied the Egyptians, the next the Tudors, then the Vikings! All giving little sense of a time line. I think it is 'better connected ' these days, with much emphasis on 'social' stuff, what people wore/ate/jobs they did and so on. By secondary education the subject might start with the outline of the Greeks and Romans, followed by English history . . . Anglo Saxons, Normans, Middle Ages . . . Leading up to exams, usually two years work. Whatever period is taught will be in much greater detail, with more emphasis on politics rather than Kings and Queens. With the odd date thrown in. 'A level' (top two years at school) is similar in approach but much more 'thoughtful'. Modern history has become much more popular partly because the syllabus requires some study of 'evidence based' stuff ie using maps, copies of old documents etc. The part that various religions/beliefs/denominations played throughout history is taught (hopefully) evenly. So for eg the Crusades will not be shown as a thoroughly good thing and the Reformation lessons will give an all-round view of what led to the growth of the Protestant movements in Europe, clash of Crown and Pope . .. and so on. As students have to write several long essays on various topics which are then sent away to be marked any obvious bias in the teaching would quickly become apparent and presumably they would fail the exam . . . which doesn't look good for the school who have to publish their results. I do remember one girl at College who studied history and claimed the only thing of importance was the Trade Union Movement. I don't know if she went on to become a teacher but if she did her pupils were soon have been bored rigid. OT. My Uncle was sent to the US to complete his education in the early '30's as his parents packed up in the UK and moved to the Philippines. He marvelled at the detail with which US history was taught and claimed it was because there was so little of it, it had to be stretched to fill the time available. 'Religious Education' was (and I suppose still is) on every English school curriculum and can be studied up to exam level. Must see if I can find a copy of a syllabus somewhere.