Hodgson (1967) noted that: "Alemow is said to be native to the Island of Cebu, Philippine Islands."
Swingle and Reece (1967) noted that: "This seems to be a
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns absent or not persistent; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length medium, wings medium or wide, adjoining the blade. Leaflets one, margins bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets freshly lemon-like. Fruit as broad as long or longer than broad; rind green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), or yellow-orange (11); rind texture medium rough (6-7) or rough (8); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh yellow; taste sour.
Hodgson (1967) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar:
"Fruit medium-large, oblong to obovate; often with prominent mammilla surrounded by circular furrow; seedy. Rind medium-thick (for size of fruit); surface somewhat rough and bumpy; tightly adherent; color greenish-yellow. Segments numerous (about 15); central axis large and solid. Flesh color greenish-yellow; low in juice; strongly acid and bitter. Seeds polyembryonic.
"Tree vigorous, spreading, very thorny (with short stout spines); flowers and new growth strongly purple-tinted. Leaves small to medium, pale green, narrow elliptical, blunt-pointed, and with broadly winged petioles of the pummelo type.
"Lemon or lime characters in the alemow are discernible, and there is some suggestion of pummelo. The writer has provisionally placed the alemow in [the lemon-like fruit] group, and it is included in this treatment because of its promise as a lemon rootstock in California where the soluble salt and boron content of the soils is unfavorably high for the commonly used rootstocks."
Swingle and Reece (1967) additionally provided the following notes on the cultivar:
"This
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clones DPI-817-14/DPI-817-65): "Released by Dr. Jack Hearn, USDA in 1989. A
Swingle and Reece (1967) noted that:
"This species, called 'Dooja' by the aborigines and round lime or native orange by the Australians, is native to northeastern Australia. It is readily distinguished from all the other species of Microcitrus (and from Eremocitrus as well) by its globose or slightly pear-shaped, rough-skinned fruits, 2.5 to 5 cm in diameter (about the size of a large walnut), and by its short-stalked pulp-vesicles that taper gradually into blunt tips often more or less deformed and twisted by mutual pressure (see fig. 3-44, B).
The early descriptions of this species and of M. australasica are so meager as to leave doubt concerning which species was being discussed. Fortunately the original descriptions of Citrus australis, published by Planchon in a rare work (Hortus donatensis, 1854-58, p. 18), was based on a specimen in the herbarium of the Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle at Paris, collected by Leichhardt in the vicinity of Moreton Bay in southeastern Queensland. A study of this type specimen makes clear the proper application of the name M. australis.
Penzig (1887, pp. 210-17, pl. 21, figs. 8-13) described in detail the anatomy of this species. He found that the pulp-vesicles were similar to those of the commonly cultivated citrus fruits except that they contain, along their central axis, large masses of yellowish oil. These pulp-vesicles are very different in shape from those of the finger-lime, M. australasica, or those of the other species of Microcitrus.
The Australian round lime, or Dooja, grows to be a tree 30 to 60 feet high and is the largest of any of the native citrus fruit trees. The fruit is said to be used for preserves in Queensland. This species, which has been introduced into the United States, grows well in California, where it is now fruiting. It is exceeded in vigor, however, by the Sydney
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third- year twig surface striate; thorns straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length very long, wings absent. Leaflets three, margins crenate/crenulate, rachis wings absent, shade leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly or strongly conduplicate. Leaflets not scented when crushed. Fruit as broad as long or longer than broad; rind dark green (3), medium green (4), light green with some break to yellow (5), yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), or orange (12); rind texture smooth (1-3) or slightly rough (4-5); firmness woody; navel absent; flesh red/purplish-tinged.
Swingle and Reece (1967) provided the following additional notes on the species:
"Bentley and Trimen (l.c.) gave the following description of this species: "A tree reaching a height of 30 or 40 feet when cultivated, with a short thick trunk and narrow oval head; in the wild state smaller and more irregular, with short, strong, sharp, spiny branches 1 inch or more in length in the axils of the leaves; bark bluish-grey, soft, with irregular furrows on the younger branches. Leaves alternate, compound, with one (rarely 2) pairs of shortly stalked opposite leaflets, and a larger long-petioled terminal one, leaflets 1-2 inches long, ovate or oval-ovate, abrupt or tapered at the base, somewhat attenuated towards the blunt apex, very shallowly serratocrenate, smooth, thin, midrib prominent beneath. Flowers 3/4 inch wide, sweet-scented, stalked, solitary, or in few-flowered, lax, erect, axillary or terminal cymes. Calyx shallow, with 5 short, broad teeth, pubescent outside. Petals 5 (rarely 4), oblong-oval, blunt, thick, pale greenish-white, dotted with glands, imbricate, spreading. Stamens numerous, sometimes coherent in bindles, hypogynous with short filaments half as long as the linear anthers. Disk none or very small. Ovary oblong-ovoid, slightly tapering into the thick short style which is again somewhat thickened upward, stigma capitate, axis of ovary wide, cells numerous, 8-20, small, arranged in a circle, with numerous ovules in each cell. Fruit usually globose, 2-5 inches in diameter, pericarp nearly smooth, greyish-yellow, about 1/8 inch thick, hard, filled with softer tissue becoming very hard and orange-red when dry; cells as in ovary. Seeds very numerous, somewhat compressed, ranged in closely packed tiers in the cells and surrounded by a very tenacious, slimy transparent mucus which becomes hard when dry; testa white, covered with woolly hairs immersed in the mucus, embryo with large cotyledons, and a short superior radicle; no endosperm."
Aegle marmelos has dimorphic twigs: (a) normal twigs with internodes 3 to 5 cm long with one well-developed leaf at each node, often with one or two spines alongside; (b ) foliage spurs produced on primary branches of the previous year's growth, usually very short, 1 to 3 cm long, with numerous very short internodes, each node bearing a leaf but no spines. The numerous leaves crowded on the foliage spurs vary greatly in size, the largest being nearly as large as the normal leaves on rapidly growing long-internoded branches but having decidedly longer petioles. The smaller leaves borne near the base of the foliage spurs are often much dwarfed, sometimes being only one-fifth or one-tenth as long as normal leaves. These crowded leaves of all sizes often hide almost completely the branches which bear them.
Because of these dimorphic characteristics the bael-fruit tree presents a peculiar appearance, with its long, slender young branches with only a few leaves scattered along them arising from an inner crown of older branches almost completely covered with massed foliage borne on the leaf spurs. Poncirus trifoliata has somewhat similar dimorphic branches and leaves but shows much less variation in the size of the leaves produced on the leaf spurs.
Besides this dimorphism of twigs and leaves, Aegle marmelos shows great variability in both kinds of leaves on different seedling trees, not only in size but in important botanical characters, such as the presence or absence of a separative layer at the junction of the terminal leaflet with its petiolule, the relative length of this petiolule and of the petiole, as well as the length of the petiole in relation to the length of the entire leaf. The petioles on some trees have distinct wings on each side for almost their entire length and on other trees show only two inconspicuous green lines broadened into very narrow wings at the upper end of the petiole. The leaflets vary greatly on different seedling trees in marginal crenulation and flatness or curvature of their surface. There is also great variation in the posture of the leaves on the twigs which bear them and the degree to which the blades, petioles, and supporting twigs show reddish coloration where exposed to sunlight.
These surprising diversities in leaf characters were studied by Swingle in October, 1941, on some thirteen fruiting trees growing at Coconut Grove and Homestead, Florida, and convinced him that it would be necessary to make a detailed study of both wild and cultivated bael-fruit trees in India. The extraordinary variation in taxonomically significant characters shown by the trees grown from seeds imported from India very probably means that there are several different strains, botanical varieties, or even good species to be found among the wild plants growing in the mountains of northern India. Seedlings of these diverse wild forms planted together in the villages would doubtless be cross-pollinated by insects and produce complex and highly variable
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the culrivar (clone DPI-424): "Seed from Australia via Dr. Bill Castle in 1981. A 1945 cross developed in Australia, a
Hodgson (1967) noted that:
"Both the origin of the name and its significance are obscure. It appears to be a
The bergamot has been known in the Mediterranean for several centuries, the distinctive and desirable characteristics of its oil having been recognized as early as 1750. Two kinds were described by Volckamer (1708-14, p. 155) and five by Risso and Poiteau (1818-22). Presumably it originated as a seedling in southern Italy. While there is general agreement that the sour orange has one parent, the other parent is a matter of conjecture. It has usually been assumed that it was the lemon, but Chapot (1962) has presented rather convincing evidence in support of the conclusion that some kind of acid lime was the other parent. In this connection, it may be of interest to note that the distinctive aroma of bergamot oil occurs also in the limettas (C. limetta Risso) of the Mediterranean basin, which are sometimes incorrectly referred to as bergamots."
Hodgson (1967) noted in his treatment of bittersweet oranges that: "Formerly thought to be a
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "Undoubtedly of Chinese origin, this fruit was early and widely distributed throughout the Orient, including Indonesia and the Philippines, where the earliest descriptions were made. Although mandarin-like in most respects, it has similarities with the kumquat and sometimes has been confused with that fruit, particularly in India and Ceylon."
Swingle and Reece (1967) noted that: "It may possibly turn out to be a back-cross of an F1 Citrus X Fortunella
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-555): "From a seedling group of Calamondins planted along the Arboretum East fence, originally entered program in 1953 from Indian Rocks Nurseries in Pinellas County. Small acid fruit used to make marmalade and flavor drinks. Grown as an ornamental and as a house plant. Origin: China, natural
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns absent or not persistent; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length short or medium; wings absent, or if present then narrow and adjoining the blade. Leaflets one, margin entire, crenate/crenulate or bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly conduplicate. Leaflets dough-scented when crushed. Fruit broader than long; rind yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), orange (12), or red-orange (13); rind texture smooth (1-3) or slightly rough (4-5); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh orange; taste acidic-sweet or sour.
Hodgson (1967) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar:
"Fruit very small, oblate to spherical; apex flattened or depressed. Rind color orange to orange-red; very thin, smooth, and finely pitted, easily separable only at maturity; sweet and edible. Segments about 9 and axis small and semi-hollow. Flesh orange-colored; tender, juicy, and acid. Seeds few, small, plump, polyembryonic, and with green cotyledons. Fruit holds on tree remarkably well.
Tree of medium vigor, highly productive, upright and columnar, nearly thornless; leaves small, broadly oval, and mandarin-like. Strongly cold-resistant."
Swingle and Reece (1967) additionally provided the following notes on the cultivar: "This
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) additionally provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-555): "Description: Tall evergreen, polyembryonic, resistant to foot rot, grown commercially in the Philippines to make acid beverages, cold hardy along the southern Gulf coast, Season: November-April"
Bayer, R.J., D.J. Mabberley, C. Morton, C.H. Miller, I.K. Sharma, B.E. Pfeil, S. Rich, R. Hitchcock, and S. Sykes. 2009. A molecular phylogeny of the orange subfamily (Rutaceae: Aurantioideae) using nine cpDNA sequences. American Journal of Botany 96: 668–685.
Cameron, J.W. and R.K. Soost. 1961. Chandler—an early-ripening
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Mabberley, D.J. 1997. A classification for edible Citrus (Rutaceae). Telopea 7: 167–172.
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Swingle and Reece (1967) additionally noted that: "These
Citrus reticulata Blanco
Bayer, R.J., D.J. Mabberley, C. Morton, C.H. Miller, I.K. Sharma, B.E. Pfeil, S. Rich, R. Hitchcock, and S. Sykes. 2009. A molecular phylogeny of the orange subfamily (Rutaceae: Aurantioideae) using nine cpDNA sequences. American Journal of Botany 96: 668–685.
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
Swingle, W.T. and H.J. Webber. 1898.
Swingle, W.T. 1910. New types of citrus fruits for Florida. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 23: 36–41.
Swingle, W.T. 1913a. New citrous fruits. American Breeders Magazine 4: 83–95.
Swingle, W.T. 1913b. Variation in first-generation
Swingle, W.T. 1927. Seed production in sterile citrus
Webber, H.J. and W.T. Swingle. 1905. New citrus creations of the Department of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture Yearbook 1904: 221–240.
Webber, H.J. 1907. New citrus and pineapple productions of the Department of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture Yearbook 1906: 329–346.
OriginHodgson (1967) noted that: "The term citrange was announced and the first variety named and described in 1904 (Webber and Swingle 1905)..."
Swingle and Reece (1967) noted that: "As the genus Poncirus is monotypic, all its
Swingle and Reece (1967) noted that: "These were the first trigeneric
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous or pubescent; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns absent or not persistent or straight, prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous or pubescent, length short or medium, wings absent, narrow or wide, adjoining the blade, tucking beneath blade or absent. Leaflets one, margin entire (by misinterpretation), crenate/crenulate or bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets spicy or peppery. Fruit as broad as long or longer than broad; rind yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), orange (12), or red-orange (13); rind texture slightly rough (4-5) or medium rough (6-7); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh orange or yellow; taste sour.
Hodgson (1967) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar: "Combining the cold-hardiness of the kumquat and trifoliate orange, the citrangequats appear to be more cold-resistant than the citranges or the Calamondin and kumquat, for they are said to succeed in regions too cold for these fruits (Ziegler and Wolfe, 1961, p. 63).
Swingle and Reece (1967) additionally noted that: "Citrangequats vary greatly in size, color, flavor, etc. The Thomasville citrangequat has obovoid fruits borne on long pedicels, 1.5 to 3 cm long and 2 to 2.5 mm in diameter at the base, but swollen and pulvinoid at the top, 8 to 10 mm, and permanently curving as the fruit matures until it hangs down, making an angle of 45° to 90° with the base of the pedicel. This character is unknown in any of the three parent species and shows how taxonomically new characters can arise in complex
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hume, H.H. 1926. The cultivation of citrus fruits. The Macmillan Co., New York. 561 pp.
Mabberley, D.J. 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae): A review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea 49: 481–498.
Swingle, W.T. and T.R. Robinson. 1923. Two important new types of citrous
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Webber, H.J. and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). 1943. The Citrus industry. Vol. I. History, botany, and breeding. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 1028 pp.
Webber, H.J. 1943. Cultivated varieties of citrus. In: Webber, H.J. and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. I: 475-668. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Ziegler, L.W. and H.S. Wolfe. 1961. Citrus growing in Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 248 pp.
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length long, wings narrow, adjoining the blade. Leaflets one or three, margin bluntly toothed, rachis wings absent, shade leaflet blades weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets sweetly orange-like. Fruit broader than long, or as broad as long, or longer than broad; rind light green with some break to yellow (5), green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), orange (12), or red-orange (13); rind texture slightly rough (4-5), medium rough (6-7), or rough (8); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh orange or yellow; taste sour.
Swingle and Reece (1967) provided the following additional notes on the group: "These
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length medium, wings narrow, adjoining the blade. Leaflets one or three, margin bluntly toothed, rachis wings absent, shade leaflet blades weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets sweetly orange-like. Fruit as broad as long or longer than broad; rind light green with some break to yellow (5), green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), or orange (12); rind texture medium rough (6-7) or rough (8); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh orange; taste sour.
Swingle and Reece (1967) provided the following additional notes on the group: "Many of these
Bayer, R.J., D.J. Mabberley, C. Morton, C.H. Miller, I.K. Sharma, B.E. Pfeil, S. Rich, R. Hitchcock, and S. Sykes. 2009. A molecular phylogeny of the orange subfamily (Rutaceae: Aurantioideae) using nine cpDNA sequences. American Journal of Botany 96: 668–685.
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Mabberley, D.J. 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae): A review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea 49: 481–498.
Swingle, W.T. 1913. Variation in first-generation
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface mottled; thorns straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length very long; wings medium, adjoining the blade. Leaflets three or five to seven, margins entire or bluntly toothed, rachis wings medium or wide, shade leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets faintly sweet candy-like. Fruit as broad as long or longer than broad; rind green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), or yellow-orange (11); rind texture slightly rough (4-5); firmness membranous; navel absent; flesh yellow.
Swingle and Reece (1967) provided the following additional notes on the genus:
"A genus of Near-Citrus Fruit Trees found in tropical Africa. Shrubs or small trees with 1 or 2 well-developed spines (C. angolensis is said to be spineless) in the axils of the leaves; leaves pinnate, sometimes 3-foliate [sic], rarely 1-foliolate (simple in C. tanakae); rachis and petiole usually broadly winged (wingless in C. le-testui), flowers 4- or 5-merous, usually in dense axillary clusters or short racemes; stamens twice as many as the petals, filaments free, flattened laterally and in some species cohering laterally at the base in groups; ovary with 4 or 5 locules, each with a single ovule; fruit spherical, small (2-3 cm diam.), with pulp-vesicles broad at the base where they are attached and tapering to an acute tip; seeds large (10 X 6 X 4 mm); cotyledons hypogeous in germination.
This genus is certainly closely related to Citrus, in spite of the fact that all but one species of Citropsis have pinnate or trifoliolate leaves. It belongs, along with Atalantia, to group B, the Near-Citrus Fruit Trees, of the subtribe Citrinae. Both of these genera have small, subglobose fruits, 1.5 to 3 cm in diameter, with 3 to 5 locules, in which occur broad-based, sessile, conical, radially arranged pulp-vesicles. All the species of Citropsis have leaves, or leaflets, very similar to those of Citrus in shape, venation, and texture, whereas the leaves of the species of Atalantia are thick, more leathery, and much more veiny than those of Citrus.
The seeds of Citropsis are plump and broadly ovoid with a very hard, smooth testa. The hilum is an oval or ovate aperture bordered by the incurved testa, which is here very hard and thick. No other genus of the subtribe Citrinae has seeds as plump and as hard-shelled. The flowers of Citropsis differ greatly in the various species with respect to size and proportion of parts, and especially with respect to the morphology of the pistil. The leaves differ even more than the flowers in the different species, but fortunately for the taxonomist the leaf and flower characters are not closely correlated; that is, a pair of species having very similar leaves, like C. schweinfurthii and C. angolensis, may show easily recognized differences in the flowers. Citropsis schweinfurthii and C. gilletiana have similar flowers, with only slight differences in the pistil, but very different leaves.
The species of Citropsis look like missing links, i.e., surviving forms of the remote ancestors of Citrus and may, in fact, be such forms that migrated tens of millions of years ago from the southeastern Asiatic homeland of the tribe Citreae and found safe and congenial refuge in the tropical forests of Africa, where they have persisted with little change ever since. Once safely in Africa, the ancestors of Citropsis were freed from competition with the numerous species of related genera of the subtribe Triphasiinae as well as from the danger of
"A striking proof of the inadequacy of our botanical exploration of tropical Africa is shown by the fact that, of the eleven species of Citropsis here recognized, eight were discovered after 1900 and five of these after 1920. The last three species to be found—C. gilletiana, C. tanakae,and C. daweana —were described as recently as 1940! The two last-named are strikingly different from all the other known species and from each other. They are not mere small species made by splitting large species, but are new and aberrant members of the genus, which when better known may need to have new subgenera made to include them. One subgenus, Afrocitrus, has already been named to include three allied species, all growing in western tropical Africa.
In the Congo, it was found that Gillet’s cherry-orange, C. gilletiana, the most vigorous species in the genus, growing to be a tree 10 meters high, could be used to advantage as a rootstock for cultivated varieties of Citrus because of its resistance to foot rot (very injurious to cultivated varieties of Citrus there). This species proved to be an even better rootstock than the sour orange for the orange, the mandarin, the pummelo, and the lemon. It is one of the more important rootstocks for Citrus found in this century.
In view of the beauty of their foliage, the refreshing fragrance of their flowers, and the attractive aroma of their tiny fruits, coupled with their rapid growth and free flowering while still small trees, an effort should be made to test all the species of Citropsis as greenhouse ornamentals in the cooler climates and as out-of-door ornamentals in subtropical regions."
Swingle and Reece (1967) additionally noted that:
"Wichmann (1917, p. 202) told of getting a fresh supply of fruits at a village on the shores of Lake Sentani in northern Dutch New Guinea (now West Irian, Indonesia). Among these were thick-skinned fruits of a Citrus with pulp "so disgustingly bitter that it was hours before one's mouth got free from the taste." This persistent bitter taste is due to the numerous droplets of acrid oil that are found in the pulp-vesicles of all species of the subgenus Papeda and in some of the
A beautiful Citrus which Swingle saw growing wild in the primeval forest on the lower slopes of Mount Maquiling in southern Luzon, P.I., belongs, he believed, to C. macroptera. It has usually long-pointed leaves with very large, entire, winged petioles, and smooth, subglobose fruits the size of a large orange. The conviction that this Citrus is truly indigenous in the primeval forests on the lowers slopes of Mount Maquiling is substantiated by the observation of D. A. Herbert (1924, p. 195), who reported that this Citrus (which he called C. hystrix) occurs occasionally in the dipterocarp forest, which was the original forest growth on Mount Maquiling up to an altitude of about 600 meters.
This species doubtless grows wild in New Guinea, Bismarck Archipelago, Celebes, southern Luzon, and the southern islands of the Philippines. It has reached New Caledonia, Fiji, Samoa, Guam, and probably many other of the Polynesian islands, probably being carried by the Polynesians for use in washing. Safford (l.c., pp. 226-27) gave a firsthand account of the use of the fruit pulp of this species in Guam not only for washing the hair, but also as a substitute for soap in washing clothing. He stated further that the macerated leaves form a lather when water is added. Safford whose observations apply also to Samoa, cited F. Reinecke (1898, pp. 642-43) to show that both the pressed-out fruit juice and the macerated leaves form a lather when rubbed and that they are specially useful in washing the hair to free it from the lime which is much used by the natives to bleach the hair. Both Safford and Reinecke noted that after the fruit falls off the tree the peel hardens and becomes like a stony shell in drying. [...]
The plants of C. macroptera that have been grown in Florida from seed obtained from trees found growing wild on Mount Maquiling, Luzon, P.I., were reported by T. Ralph Robinson (Keys, 1923) as being immune to withertip and resistant to canker. This large-fruited, disease-resistant, and vigorous strain is promising for use in breeding new and superior citrus rootstocks."
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns absent or not persistent; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length short; wings narrow, adjoining the blade. Leaflets one, margin bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets mandarin-like. Fruit broader than long; rind yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), orange (12), or red-orange (13); rind texture medium rough (6-7); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh orange; taste acidic-sweet.
Swingle and Reece (1967) provided the following additional notes on the species:
"A description of this species by T. Makino, as translated by S. Katsura, reads: "Tree stands over 10 feet. Branches and leaves grow thickly. Strongly resistant to frost or snow. Fruit somewhat flattened, 2-3 cm lateral diam. Skin smooth, oil glands scattered beneath the skin. Segment cases 6-7; juice bitter and almost inedible. Seeds 1-2 in a segment, and rather large in size. Fruits at first green but turning yellow in the late autumn. The flavor of the skin resembles that of Yuzu. Flowers the same as other Citrus plants in time of blooming, shape and color. In the rainy season of summer the petals begin to turn white. Needle-like thorns are found on the branches. Petioles not winged."
A description of the paratype in the herbarium of Hokkaido Imperial University made by Tanaka reads as follows: "Branches small and slender; thorns about 3 mm long, acute. Leaves long, ovate-elliptical, subcoriaceous, broadly acuminate, obtuse and incised at the tip, somewhat broad and convex at the base, indistinctly dentate at the margin, midrib slender, straight and distinct beneath, veins almost indistinct, oil glands indistinct; petiole short, small, with linear wings which seem to be on the verge of degeneration. Flowers axillary, solitary, small. Pedicels 2 mm long, slender, glabrous; scales at the base triangular, ciliate at the margin. Calyx 3 mm in diameter; sepals somewhat recurved outward, densely ciliate at the margin. Disk large, ring-form, subcarnose, depressed at the apex. Ovary almost globular, attenuate at the base, about 2 X 2 mm in size.""
"This species is very similar in many of its characters to the mandarin orange, C. reticulata. The great antiquity of the tachibana in Japan seems to preclude its being a
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns absent or not persistent; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length very long; wings wide, tucking beneath blade. Leaflets one, margin crenate/crenulate or bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets freshly lemon-like. Fruit as broad as long or longer than broad; rind dark green (3), medium green (4), light green with some break to yellow (5), green-yellow (6), or yellow (7-10); rind texture medium rough (6-7) or rough (8); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh green/greenish or yellow; taste sour.
Swingle and Reece (1967) provided the following additional notes on the species:
"J. J. Ochse (1931, pp. 117-18) gave the following description of C. hystrix as it occurs in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia): "Low tree or shrub, 2-12 m high; trunk crooked, asymmetric or angular, rather thin, branched near the base; crown irregular, densely branched; branchlets thin, when young compressed-acutangular, when older terete, dark green, glabrous with scattered glandular dots, armed with axillary spines; spines short, stiff, subulate, green with hard brown or orange-coloured tips, obliquely erect, solitary, glabrous, 0.2-1 cm long. Leaves alternate or biseriate, stalked unifoliate, orbicular-ovate or ovate-oblong, lanceolate; base cuneate, obtuse or rounded, rarely subcordate, apex obtuse, rounded or obtusely acuminate, often notched; patently serrate-crenate, coriaceous, glabrous on both surfaces, above dark green, shining, beneath light green or yellowish-green, dull, densely pellucid dotted, fragrant when bruised, 3-15 cm long, 2.5-6 cm wide. Petiole from 0.3-0.5 cm above the base upwards with large, foliaceous wings; the winged part obovate or obcordate-oblong, with an acute, cuneote[sic], obtuse or rounded base and an obtuse, truncate, rounded or slightly emarginate apex, patently crenate-exsculptate, coriaceous, above dark green, shining, beneath light green or yellowish green, dull, with scattered pellucid dots, including the wings 1-8 cm long, 1-4.5 cm wide, sometimes very similar to the leaf itself and not rarely for a greater or smaller part connate with it. Inflorescences axillary or terminal, dense, 1-5-flowered, glabrous. Flowers smallish, shortly stalked, 4-5-merous, fragrant, in bud globose, white, 0.5-0.7 cm diam.; pedicel terete, yellowish green, glabrous, 0.1-0.5 cm long. Calyx cupular, afterwards flat, 4-lobed, glabrous within and without, 0.2-0.35 cm diam.; lobes broadly ovate-triangular, acute or shortly acuminate, yellowish white with violet margins, ciliate, ±0.1 cm long. Petals 4-5, ovate oblong, with a narrowed base and a narrowed or acuminate, obtuse apex, yellowish white or tinged with red, glabrous, with scattered pellucid dots, 0.7-1 cm long, 0.3-0.5 cm broad. Stamens 24-30, quite free, 0.4-0.8 cm long, filaments thickened above the base, with a filiform apex, glabrous, 0.3-0.6 cm long; anthers elliptic-oblong, 0.15-0.25 cm long. Ovary depressed globose, glabrous, with a tuberculate-folded surface, 0.2-0.4 cm diam.; style short, robust, terete, glabrous, 0.1-0.15 cm long; stigma depressed globose, glabrous. Fruit pendulous, globose, ovoid or ellipsoid, with an abruptly contracted obtuse or rounded base and a rounded or slightly depressed apex, crowned by a short style-rest, very irregularly bumpy, glabrous, with many scattered glandular dots, when ripe yellow or yellowish green, feebly shining, 5-7 cm diam.; peel thick, its exterior layer of ±0.2 cm thickness, yellowish green, the inner part white; pulp yellowish green, very sour and slightly bitter, faintly fragrant; fruiting pedicel very short, 0.3-0.5 cm long. Seeds ovoid-oblong, 1-1.5 cm long, 0.5 cm thick; cotyledons and plumule white."
Ochse stated that "this species, called Djerook pooroot in the Dutch East Indies, is nowhere cultivated on a large scale but…very often on a small one."
This much misunderstood species was named by De Candolle from young seedlings, not yet in flower, grown from seed sent to the Montpellier Botanic Garden from Mauritius, where it was probably not native. De Candolle redescribed it in 1824 but had not yet seen flowers or fruits.
Thanks to flowering material from Mauritius and from Montpellier preserved in the Kew Herbarium, it is possible to determine with certainty that C. hystrix is the species with very bumpy fruits belonging to the subgenus Papeda that is widely distributed in Indonesia. The fruits usually have 10 to 12 segments (rarely 13 or 14). The leaves are blunt-pointed, usually of medium size, 8 to 12 by 3 to 5 cm, more or less irregular at the tip and sometimes slightly emarginate. The margins are more or less crenate. The winged petiole, usually two-thirds to three-fourths as long as the leaf blade, is broadly rounded and blunt at the base, often subtruncate at the tip, often with more or less crenate margins.
The flowers are small, with short, entirely free stamens, as in all the other species in the section Papeda . The fruits are almost always bumpy or tuberculate. The pulp-vesicles were first described by Penzig (1887, pp. 131-32), who stated: "They are provided with a slender very long stalk which suddenly enlarges toward the free end, forming a small round or oval body pointed at the tip." Penzig noted that they differ from the pulp-vesicles of the other species studied by him in showing "a large amount of oil accumulated in their centers." This accumulation of numerous droplets of oil, often of a very strong and acrid flavor, is characteristic of all the species of the subgenus Papeda. The cotyledons are epigeous in germination.
Citrus hystrix, although the best known and most widely distributed species of this subgenus, is not the most vigorous species, and not the most promising for use as a rootstock. It has undoubtedly
Bonavia reported (1886, p. 215) that the fruit of C. hystrix is never eaten; however, it is used by the natives in Ceylon as an insecticide for washing the head and also for smearing on the feet to kill land leeches. The tree is often cultivated near the villages for these purposes. According to Bonavia, C. hystrix may have come into Ceylon with the Dutch and their Malay servants for use as a hair wash. This use may account for the wide distribution of the species throughout the East Indian Archipelago and adjoining parts of the Asiatic mainland.
Chapot, H. and R. Huet. 1963. L'orange salustiana. Al Awamia [Rabat] 6: 73–93.
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
Mabberley, D.J. 1997. A classification for edible Citrus (Rutaceae). Telopea 7: 167–172.
Tanaka, T. 1954. Species problem in Citrus (Revisio aurantiacearum IX). Japanese Society for Promotion of Science, Ueno. 152 pp.
Trabut, L. 1902a. Une nouvelle tangerine, La Clementine. Gouvernement General del'Algerie. Direction de l' Agriculture. Informations Agricoles - Bulletin 35: 21–35.
Trabut, L. 1902b. L'
Trabut, L. 1926. La Clementine, les
Webber, H.J. and W.T. Swingle. 1905. New citrus creations of the Department of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture Yearbook 1904: 221–240.
OriginHodgson (1967) provided the following information on the cultivar under Clementine: According to Trabut (1902a, 1902b, 1926) this highly important North African variety originated as an accidental
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes under Swingle (clone DPI-814-55): "Entered by the USDA in 1973. Originally clone 4475. Originally
Swingle and Reece (1967) additionally noted that:
"The wood-apple tree (sometimes called elephant apple), like the related bael-fruit tree (Aegle marmelos ), also native in the hill regions of northern India, is deciduous; however, it is not reported as growing above 457 meters (1,500 feet) in the western Himalaya, whereas the bael tree in the same region grows up to 1,219 meters (4,000 feet). The wood apple is common in Ceylon in dry regions but the bael tree is not native so far south. The wood-apple tree is often planted in dooryard gardens in southern Asia and Java.
The ability to drop its leaves puts the wood apple in a special, small group of Citrus relatives. It will be well worth while to study the wood apple and the bael fruit as examples of subtropical Citrus relatives that have acquired the deciduous habit.
As Feronia limonia can be used successfully at least for a few years as a rootstock for Citrus, it should be compared with the trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata), another deciduous Citrus relative that has been used with great success as a rootstock for kumquats and for the satsuma orange. Citrus when grafted on the wood apple is sometimes forced promptly into bloom. Such a graft might be utilized in an attempt to force newly originated or newly introduced varieties into bloom so that they may be used promptly in making other desired
The ripe fruits of the wood apple contain a sour-sweet, aromatic pulp in which the seeds are imbedded. This pulp is sometimes eaten mixed with palm sugar or sweetened and stirred into coconut milk. It is also used to make a jelly said to be more or less astringent. A chutney is made from the pulp that is much liked by the natives. (See De Silva, 1890, p. 722; and Watt, 1890, vol. 3, pp. 326-27.)
Citrus glauca (Lindl.) Burkill x Citrus reticulata Blanco
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length short; wings absent. Leaflets one, margin crenate/crenulate or bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades flat, sun leaflet blades weakly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets freshly lemon-like. Fruit as broad as long or longer than broad; rind green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), or yellow-orange (11); rind texture slightly rough (4-5); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh yellow; taste sour.
Hodgson (1967) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar:
"Fruit medium-small, elliptical to oblong, sometimes obovate; commonly with short neck or low collar at base; usually short but sometimes long apical mammilla or nipple; frequently surrounded with areolar furrow. Seed content variable but usually few to none. Color yellow at maturity. Rind medium-thick; surface finely pitted with sunken oil glands, slightly rugose, commonly with low longitudinal ridges; tightly adherent. Segments about 10; axis small and usually solid. Flesh color greenish-yellow; fine-grained, tender, juicy; flavor highly acid. Crop well distributed throughout year, but mainly in late winter, spring, and early summer.
Tree medium in vigor and size, spreading and open in growth habit, virtually thornless; sparsely foliated (in comparison with Lisbon and others); strongly everbearing and produces fruit at the ends of long branches; precocious; productive. Tree lacking vigor compared with most other varieties; more sensitive to cold, insect infestation, and neglect; shorter-lived.
The fruit of the Eureka variety differs in general from that of Lisbon, the principal other variety in California, in that it is more prominently ridged and has a somewhat rougher rind surface and usually a smaller and less pronounced nipple. The tree differences are much more marked. In addition to those differences...the leaves are darker in color and less sharply pointed and the margins are somewhat more crenate than the Lisbon."
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-404-27): "Description: virtually thornless, precocious, productive compared to other varieties, more sensitive to cold, less vigorous, shorter lived, incompatible with PT and
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "Eustis and Lakeland are sister
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-843-1): "Limequat received from the USDA in 1982. Origin: West Indian lime and the round kumquat (Fortunella japonica) cross made by W. Swingle in 1909 at Eustis Florida."
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-817-3): " A USDA Orlando
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length short or medium; wings absent, if present, narrow, adjoining the blade. Leaflets one, margin bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly conduplicate. Scrent of crushed leaflets spicy or peppery or freshly lemon-like. Fruit broader than long, as broad as long, or longer than broad; rind green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), orange (12), or red-orange (13); rind texture smooth (1-3) or slightly rough (4-5); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh orange; taste acidic-sweet or sour.
Swingle and Reece (1967) noted that: "The faustrimedin is a
Swingle and Reece (1967) additionally noted that: "This
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-139): "Gold Nugget is a University of California
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous or pubescent; second- or third-year twig pubescence striate; thorns absent or not persistent or straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous or pubescent, length short, medium, long or very long; wings absent, if present, narrow, medium or wide, adjoining the blade or tucking beneath blade. Leaflets one, margins entire, crenate/crenulate or bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades flat, weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets sweetly orange-like, spicy/peppery, freshly lemon-like, somewhat to strongly malodorous, or not scented. Fruit broader than long, as broad as long, or longer than broad; rind green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), or orange (12); rind texture slightly rough (4-5) or medium rough (6-7); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh orange, red/purplish-tinged, or yellow; taste grapefruit-like; acidic-sweet or sour.
Notes ReferencesCottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
ResourcesSwingle and Reece (1967) noted that:
"The grapefruit apparently originated in the West Indies. In spite of careful search, it has not been found native in the Old World, where the parent species is largely grown and where many horticultural varieties are known."
"Another alternative is that the grapefruit may be a
"It must be admitted that the true nature of the grapefruit is still unknown. It is to be hoped that the mystery of its origin can be settled by some of the newer methods now used in taxonomic research."
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "Honey is a
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "Imperial originated about 1890 at Emu Plains, some thirty miles west of Sydney, New South Wales, and is believed to be a chance
Hodgson (1967) noted that:
"Kara, a variety of some interest in California, is a
"This very late ripening and richly flavored variety is an Owari satsuma-King mandarin
Citrus reticulata
Hodgson (1967) additionally noted that:
"Climatically, the most distinctive feature of this variety is its very high heat requirement for the attainment of horticultural maturity and good quality, for which reason it is the latest ripening of the mandarins. The fruit also is markedly affected by environmental influences, including both rootstock and soil. Thus, when grown in Florida on sour orange rootstock in the heavier-textured soils, the size is large, rind surface relatively smooth, and the flavor excellent—rich and sprightly. On rough lemon rootstock in light-textured soils, the rind surface is rough and warty and the flavor much less pronounced. As a consequence, for satisfactory quality its range of commercial adaptation is quite restricted. In California, it attains acceptable flavor only in the hottest interior districts and is undesirably rough in rind surface and unattractive in appearance.
At one time King had considerable importance in Florida, but it is now grown very little commercially. It is still used in the gift-package trade, however, and for home planting. It has never achieved importance in California.
Of horticultural interest in connection with this variety is the fact that several of its
Several observers have reported similarities between the fruits of King and Campeona, a variety of growing importance in Argentina. These similarities include size, form, roughness and thickness of rind, white cotyledons, and lateness of maturity."
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-50-44): "Received seed from UC Riverside in 1977. Seed brought back by Dr. Bill Castle, CREC. Used as a rootstock, origin is unknown, apparently a pummelo-mandarin
Swingle and Reece (1967) noted that: "The discovery that a small-fruited plant, obviously a kumquat, was masquerading under the name Atalantia hindsii led Swingle to a study of the group, with the result that in 1915 he proposed a new genus, Fortunella, to include all the species of kumquats that had hitherto been placed in Citrus and Atalantia. Important characters were brought to light that separated Fortunella sharply from both Citrus and Atalantia. Further studies have disclosed the fact that a number of varieties of kumquats found in cultivation in China and Japan are merely
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous or pubescent; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns absent or not persistent; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous or pubescent, length short or medium; wings absent, narrow or wide, adjoining the blade, tucking beneath blade or absent. Leaflets one, margin entire, crenate/crenulate, bluntly toothed or serrate/serrulate, shade leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades flat or weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets sweetly orange-like, spicy or peppery, freshly lemon-like, somewhat to strongly malodorous, mandarin-like or not scented. Fruit broader than long, as broad as long, or longer than broad; rind variegated, medium green (4), light green with some break to yellow (5), green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), orange (12), or red-orange (13); rind texture smooth (1-3), slightly rough (4-5), or medium rough (6-7); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh orange or yellow; taste acidic-sweet or sour.
Swingle and Reece (1967) provided the following additional notes on the group:
"The species of Fortunella, in spite of their small number, have been very inadequately studied, largely because, until recently, only one species was cultivated in either Europe or the United States and the others were represented only by scanty herbarium material in a few of the largest herbaria."
"There are also intergeneric
"Several species of Fortunella have developed a degree of resistance to winter cold and at the same time an even more important physiological peculiarity, namely, a very pronounced winter dormancy that permits them to pass through weeks of warm weather without starting growth or flowering. This quality, possessed in much higher degree by the kumquats than by any other citrus fruit tree (not excluding the winter-hardy Poncirus), makes them of prime importance in the breeding of new types of hardy citrus fruit trees (especially for producing acid citrus fruits) able to grow in much colder regions than the lemon or lime (both notoriously deficient in winter dormancy and hence easily pushed into growth by a few days of untimely warm weather in winter or early spring).
Fortunella
Kumquats and kumquat
For diagnostic purposes, cultivars in this group can be divided into three classes based on fruit size. As fruit size varies to some extent on an individual plant, it is necessary to gauge the approximate average size when attempting to place a cultivar into one of the three classes. Within the size classes, cultivars can be differentiated to some extent by leaf scent, color of the fruit flesh, and subtle differences in leaf dimensions.
Small-fruited cultivars (fruits usually < 1.5 cm long). This group includes the procimequats and some calamondins. The two can be distinguished by the scent of the crushed young leaves. Calamondins have a distinctive, bready doughy scent, whereas procimequats do not. Procimequats also generally bear smaller fruits (0.7 to 1.2 [1.3] cm long). Fruits of calamondins vary from 1.5 to 3 cm long. Fruits of both cultivars are generally as broad as long or broader than long. Leaf blades also vary in general dimension. Procimequats tend to exhibit narrow elliptical leaves with bases and apices often tapered to about the same degree (and thus exhibiting a rather symmetrical shape). Calamondin leaves tend to have a higher length to width ratio, with leaves frequently at least half as wide as long.
Medium-fruited cultivars (fruits usually 1.5 to 3.5 cm long). This group includes calamondin, Crassifolia, Meiwa, and Nagami (among others). Fruits in this group tend to be distinctly longer than broad. Calamondin can be distinguished from all others in the group by the distinctive bread doughy scent of the crushed young leaves. Meiwa plants grown in the UCR Citrus Variety Collection are distinctive in that they generally do not exhibit a petiole wing articulation. The blade is thus extends uninterrupted to the petiole base. A few leaves on a given plant may exhibit incomplete articulation, but the vast majority show no articulation at all. This condition appears to be unique to Meiwa, at least in Riverside, and is not shared by any other kumquat or kumquat
Large-fruited cultivars (fruits usually 3 to 6 cm long). As in the medium-fruited group above, fruits in the large-fruited group tend to be distinctly longer than broad. This group includes the citrangequats, mandarinquats, and orangequats. The scent of crushed young leaves can be helpful in recognizing plants in one of these three
Citrangequats. Sinton and Thomasville can be distinguished from one another in part by subtle differences in leaf blade size and length to width ratio. Sinton tends to exhibit leaves shorter (ca. 4-6 cm long) and broader relative to their overall length (slightly less than half as long as wide). Sinton also tends to bear somewhat shorter fruits (ca. 3-4.5 cm long). Thomasville in contrast tends to exhibit leaves longer (ca. 5.5-8.5 cm long) and narrower relative to their overall length (width about 40% of the length). Thomasville fruits tend to be in the range of 4-5 (-6) cm long.
Mandarinquats. Indio exhibits some of the largest leaves among kumquat
Orangequats. Nippon exhibits leaves in the range of 4.5-5.5 (-7) cm long. Leaves tend to be between 33 and 37% as wide as long. The crushed young leaves are reminiscent of sweet orange. Fruits fall within the range of 3.5-4.5 cm long.
ReferencesSwingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
ResourcesKumquats and kumquat
For diagnostic purposes, cultivars in this group can be divided into three classes based on fruit size. As fruit size varies to some extent on an individual plant, it is necessary to gauge the approximate average size when attempting to place a cultivar into one of the three classes. Within the size classes, cultivars can be differentiated to some extent by leaf scent, color of the fruit flesh, and subtle differences in leaf dimensions.
Small-fruited cultivars (fruits usually < 1.5 cm long). This group includes the procimequats and some calamondins. The two can be distinguished by the scent of the crushed young leaves. Calamondins have a distinctive, bready doughy scent, whereas procimequats do not. Procimequats also generally bear smaller fruits (0.7 to 1.2 [1.3] cm long). Fruits of calamondins vary from 1.5 to 3 cm long. Fruits of both cultivars are generally as broad as long or broader than long. Leaf blades also vary in general dimension. Procimequats tend to exhibit narrow elliptical leaves with bases and apices often tapered to about the same degree (and thus exhibiting a rather symmetrical shape). Calamondin leaves tend to have a higher length to width ratio, with leaves frequently at least half as wide as long.
Medium-fruited cultivars (fruits usually 1.5 to 3.5 cm long). This group includes calamondin, Crassifolia, Meiwa, and Nagami (among others). Fruits in this group tend to be distinctly longer than broad. Calamondin can be distinguished from all others in the group by the distinctive bread doughy scent of the crushed young leaves. Meiwa plants grown in the UCR Citrus Variety Collection are distinctive in that they generally do not exhibit a petiole wing articulation. The blade is thus extends uninterrupted to the petiole base. A few leaves on a given plant may exhibit incomplete articulation, but the vast majority show no articulation at all. This condition appears to be unique to Meiwa, at least in Riverside, and is not shared by any other kumquat or kumquat
Large-fruited cultivars (fruits usually 3 to 6 cm long). As in the medium-fruited group above, fruits in the large-fruited group tend to be distinctly longer than broad. This group includes the citrangequats, mandarinquats, and orangequats. The scent of crushed young leaves can be helpful in recognizing plants in one of these three
Citrangequats. Sinton and Thomasville can be distinguished from one another in part by subtle differences in leaf blade size and length to width ratio. Sinton tends to exhibit leaves shorter (ca. 4-6 cm long) and broader relative to their overall length (slightly less than half as long as wide). Sinton also tends to bear somewhat shorter fruits (ca. 3-4.5 cm long). Thomasville in contrast tends to exhibit leaves longer (ca. 5.5-8.5 cm long) and narrower relative to their overall length (width about 40% of the length). Thomasville fruits tend to be in the range of 4-5 (-6) cm long.
Mandarinquats. Indio exhibits some of the largest leaves among kumquat
Orangequats. Nippon exhibits leaves in the range of 4.5-5.5 (-7) cm long. Leaves tend to be between 33 and 37% as wide as long. The crushed young leaves are reminiscent of sweet orange. Fruits fall within the range of 3.5-4.5 cm long.
ReferencesBayer, R.J., D.J. Mabberley, C. Morton, C.H. Miller, I.K. Sharma, B.E. Pfeil, S. Rich, R. Hitchcock, and S. Sykes. 2009. A molecular phylogeny of the orange subfamily (Rutaceae: Aurantioideae) using nine cpDNA sequences. American Journal of Botany 96: 668–685.
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Han, Y.-c. 1923. Han Yen-chih's Chü lu (written 1178). Monograph on the oranges of Wenchou, Chekiang. Translated by Michael J. Hagerty, with introduction by Paul Pelliot. T'oung Pao, Leiden, Ser. 2, 22: 63–96.
Hume, H.H. 1903. The kumquats. Florida Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 65: 550–566.
Hume, H.H. 1909. Citrus fruits and their culture. Orange Judd & Co., New York. 587 pp.
Mabberley, D.J. 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae): A review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea 49: 481–498.
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Swingle, W.T. 1910. New types of citrus fruits for Florida. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 23: 36–41.
Swingle, W.T. 1913. New citrous fruits. American Breeders Magazine 4: 83–95.
Swingle, W.T. and T.R. Robinson. 1923. Two important new types of citrous
Trabut, L. 1912. Chinois et kumquat. Revue Horticole [Paris] 84: 564–567. 3 figs.
Trabut, L. 1914. Le kumquat. Bulletin Agricole de l'Algerie et de la Tunisie II 20: 2–11.
Volckamer, J.C. 1708-14. Nürnbergische Hesperides, oder gründliche Beschreibung der edlen Citronat- Citronen- und Pomeranzen-Füchte… Bei dem Authore, Nürnberg. 2 vol.
The Chiefland Budwod Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone F-55-26): "Lakeland Limequat F-55-26 originated from Indian Rocks Nurseries in Pinellas County. Entered in 1953 as SPB-145b (5-8-7) Origin: Eustis Florida
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "This new early
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone SPB-800-56): "Lee is a USDA
Chiefland Budwood Facility. 2010. 2010 Annual report July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010. Bureau of Citrus Budwood Registration, Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Winter Haven.
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Mabberley, D.J. 1997. A classification for edible Citrus (Rutaceae). Telopea 7: 167–172.
Mabberley, D.J. 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae): A review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea 49: 481–498.
Reece, P. C., and F. E. Gardner. 1959. Robinson, Osceola and Lee—new early maturing tangerine
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns absent or not persistent or straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length short; wings absent, or if present, narrow or medium, adjoining the blade. Leaflets one, margin crenate/crenulate, bluntly toothed or serrate/serrulate, shade leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades flat, weakly conduplicate or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets sweetly orange-like, spicy or peppery, or freshly lemon-like. Fruit broader than long, as broad as long, or longer than broad; rind green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), orange (12), or red-orange (13); rind texture smooth (1-3), slightly rough (4-5), medium rough (6-7), or rough (8); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh orange or yellow; taste acidic-sweet or sour.
Notes ReferencesCottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
ResourcesThe Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-833-31): "Collected from the USDA Whitmore Farm in 1978.
Swingle and Reece (1967) noted that:
“The origin of the lemon is a mystery. Tanaka (1929, p. 342) suggests that it was not introduced to China until the Sung Dynasty (760-1297 A.D.), and it is still rare in India (according to Biraghi 1935). It was actively spread in the Mediterranean region by the Arabs about 1000 to 1200 A.D. Like the sour orange, it became widely and favorably known as a medicinal agent. According to Glidden (1937, p. 382), the lemon was first described in detail by Ibn-Jami, a physician at the court of Saladin (1171-1193 A.D.), in a treatise on the medical uses of the lemon (now lost; parts, however, have been preserved in quotations). The lemon was considered by Linnaeus to be a variety of the citron (C. medica) and obviously closely related to it. Probably the lemon should be considered as a satellite species of the citron; possibly it may prove to be of
“The true lemon is of recent introduction and is still very rare in southern China, as was shown by Kwok Wa-shau, who in 1921 and 1922 made, under Swingle's direction, for the Bureau of Plant Industry (now encompassed by the Agricultural Research Service) a detailed survey of all the citrus fruits cultivated or found growing wild in the vicinity of Canton. The so-called white lemon, pak ning-mong in Cantonese, and the red lemon, hung ning-mong , both of which grow commonly in southern China, are not true lemons, but are
”The origin of the lemon is still doubtful unless it proves to be a
Hodgson (1967) noted that:
“The lemon is the limone of Italy, the limon of Spain, and the citron of France. The fact that the French name is the same as the English name for a quite different, closely related fruit has led to both confusion and ambiguity in the literature.
The lemon must have originated in the eastern Himalayan region of India and adjoining areas, also the home of the citron, for natural
From archeological evidence, Tolkowsky (1938) has concluded that the lemon reached Italy by the end of the second century and was among the fruits taken by the Arabs to Spain prior to 1150 A.D. (see chap. 1, this work). It is clear that the Arabs took the lemon to the Mediterranean and across North Africa to Spain, for Arab writers of the twelfth century mention it as among the citrus fruits grown there at that time. It is also certain that tae Crusaders took it from Palestine to southern Europe, Italy in particular, not long thereafter. It is known that the lemon was among the fruits taken to the New World by Columbus on his second voyage in 1493.”
”Pink-fleshed bud sports are known to have occurred in the acid lemon group, but the writer has been unable to discover any that have been named and propagated commercially.
While some authorities would include the distinctive limettas of the Mediterranean, in the opinion of the writer these can best be regarded as a separate, closely related group and considered under C. limetta Risso.”
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns absent or not persistent or straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length short or medium; wings absent, if present, narrow or medium, adjoining the blade or tucking beneath blade. Leaflets one, margin bluntly toothed or serrate/serrulate, shade leaflet blades weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades flat or weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets sweetly orange-like, spicy or peppery, or freshly lemon-like. Fruit broader than long, as broad as long, or longer than broad; rind green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), orange (12), or red-orange (13); rind texture slightly rough (4-5), medium rough (6-7), or rough (8); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh orange or yellow; taste sour.
Notes ReferencesCottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Mabberley, D.J. 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae): A review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea 49: 481–498.
ResourcesHodgson (1967) noted that:
"Eustis and Lakeland are sister
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length short; wings absent, if present, narrow or wide, adjoining the blade. Leaflets one, margin entire, crenate/crenulate, bluntly toothed or serrate/serrulate, shade leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly conduplicate or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets freshly lemon-like. Fruit as broad as long or longer than broad; rind medium green (4), light green with some break to yellow (5), green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), or yellow-orange (11); rind texture smooth (1-3) or slightly rough (4-5); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh yellow.
Swingle and Reece (1967) provided the following additional notes on the group:
"These
Most of the named varieties of limequats, Eustis, Lakeland, etc., are
Hodgson (1967) provided the following additional notes on the group:
"Eustis and Lakeland are sister
"Of the limequats, which are bigeneric
Bayer, R.J., D.J. Mabberley, C. Morton, C.H. Miller, I.K. Sharma, B.E. Pfeil, S. Rich, R. Hitchcock, and S. Sykes. 2009. A molecular phylogeny of the orange subfamily (Rutaceae: Aurantioideae) using nine cpDNA sequences. American Journal of Botany 96: 668–685.
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
Hume, H.H. 1926. The cultivation of citrus fruits . The Macmillan Co., New York. 561 pp.
Mabberley, D.J. 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae): A review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea 49: 481–498.
Swingle, W.T. 1914–17. Citrus and related genera. In: Bailey, L. H. Standard cyclopedia of horticulture. The Macmillan Co., New York. 6 vol.
Swingle, W.T. and T.R. Robinson. 1923. Two important new types of citrous
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Webber, H.J. 1943. Cultivated varieties of citrus. In: Webber, H.J. and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. I: 475-668. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
Mabberley, D.J. 1997. A classification for edible Citrus (Rutaceae). Telopea 7: 167–172.
Reece, P.C. and F.E. Gardner. 1959. Robinson, Osceola and Lee—new early maturing tangerine
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Swingle and Reece (1967) noted that: “The lime is apparently indigenous in the East Indian Archipelago. From there it has spread by human help to the Asiatic mainland and to many other tropical or subtropical regions of the world. It is a distinct species, not closely related to any other species of Citrus. However, limes
Hodgson (1967) noted that:
“The group name for the limes is lime in English and French and lima in Italian and Spanish. In Arabic-speaking countries and the Orient, the limes and lemons are generally grouped together under the term limûn (limoon, limoun) for the former and nimbu or limbu (numerous modifications) for the latter.
Like the citron and lemon, the limes are believed to have originated in northeastern India, adjoining portions of Burma, or northern Malaysia and to have followed the same general path westward to the Mediterranean basin and thence to the Western Hemisphere. Because of their grouping with the other acid citrus fruits, however, it is difficult, if not impossible, accurately to trace and time their westward distribution (see chap. 1, this work). It is virtually certain that the sour lime was among the fruits taken by the Arabs across North Africa into Spain and Portugal and highly probable that it was also taken to Italy by the Crusaders, although it seems not to have persisted long in Europe. It is known to have been brought to the Americas by the Spanish and Portuguese explorers in the early part of the sixteenth century, where it escaped from cultivation and became feral in parts of the West Indies, some Caribbean countries, and southern Florida.”
“Although it is known that the West Indian lime was planted on some of the Florida Keys (reef islands off the southeast coast) as early as 1838 and that ultimately it became naturalized there (hence the term Key lime), it was not until the early part of the present century that a small commercial industry was developed in Florida. It was short-lived, however, and suffered a reverse from the disastrous hurricane of 1926, from which it never recovered. Early introduced into southern California by the Spanish mission fathers, attempts at its commercial culture invariably resulted in failure and were abandoned many years ago. “
ReferencesBacchi, O. 1940. Observações citológicas em citrus. I. Número de cromosômios de algumas espécies e variedades. Jornal de Agronomia [Piracicaba] 3: 249–258.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
Reece, P.C. and F.E. Gardner. 1959. Robinson, Osceola and Lee—new early maturing tangerine
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Uphof, J.C.T. 1932. Wissenschaftliche Beobachtungen and [sic] Versuche an Agrumen. IV. Der polygamische Zustand einiger Citrusarten. Gartenbauwissenschaft 7: 121–141.
Hodgson (1967) noted that:
"This so-called Florida variety in all respects is indistinguishable from Valencia. In all probability, it represents a nucellar clonal budline of that variety and hence should be called Lue Gim Gong Valencia.According to Ziegler and Wolfe (1961), at the time of its introduction in 1912 it was claimed to be a
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous or pubescent; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns absent or not persistent or straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous or pubescent, length short, medium or long; wings absent, if present, narrow, medium or wide, adjoining the blade or tucking beneath blade. Leaflets one, margin entire, crenate/crenulate or bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades flat, weakly conduplicate, rarely strongly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades flat, weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets sweetly orange-like, spicy or peppery, mandarin-like, rarely not scented. Fruit broader than long, as broad as long, or longer than broad; rind green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), orange (12), or red-orange (13); rind texture smooth (1-3), slightly rough (4-5), medium rough (6-7), or rarely rough (8); firmness leathery; navel absent; rarely present; flesh orange, red/purplish-tinged, or yellow; taste acidic-sweet, sour, rarely acidless-sweet.
Notes ReferencesCottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
ResourcesHodgson (1967) noted that:
"According to Trabut (1902a, 1902b, 1926) this highly important North African variety originated as an accidental
The Clementine variety was introduced into the United States in 1909 and brought to California from Florida in 1914 by H. S. Fawcett of the Citrus Research Center, Riverside. Evidently another independent introduction was made, since the 1914-15 catalogue of the Fancher Creek Nurseries of Fresno, California, mentions a new early mandarin from Algeria which later proved to be indistinguishable from Clementine."
"Chapot (1963b) has recently described a small-fruited mandarin which Trabut (1926, p. 4) either found or introduced and called the mandarinette. It exhibits so many resemblances to Clementine, including seed monoembryony and early maturity, as to suggest very close relationship. The principal differences reported relate to the odor of the leaf oil, the form of the seeds, and the color of the chalazal spot."
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following additional notes on the group (clone DPI-836-1): "One of the older Clementines from the USDA Hiawassee Farm. This variety is a natural
Chapot, H. 1963a. La clementine. Al Awamia [Rabat] 7: 1–34.
Chapot, H. 1963b. La mandarinette. Al Awamia [Rabat] 8: 25–37.
Chiefland Budwood Facility. 2010. 2010 Annual report July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010. Bureau of Citrus Budwood Registration, Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Winter Haven.
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
Mabberley, D.J. 1997. A classification for edible Citrus (Rutaceae). Telopea 7: 167–172.
Soost, R.K. 1963. Citrus pollination. California Citrograph 48: 447–452.
Tanaka, T. 1954. Species problem in Citrus (Revisio aurantiacearum IX). Japanese Society for Promotion of Science, Ueno. 152 pp.
Trabut, L. 1902a. Une nouvelle tangerine, La Clementine. Gouvernement General del'Algerie. Direction de l' Agriculture. Informations Agricoles - Bulletin 35: 21–35.
Trabut, L. 1902b. L'
Trabut, L. 1926. La Clementine, les
Webber, H.J. 1943. Cultivated varieties of citrus. In: Webber, H.J. and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. I: 475-668. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Hodgson (1967) noted that:
"This variety is said to have been taken from South China to Taiwan about 1700 and thence—but much later—to Japan. Mato is currently first in importance among pummelo varieties in Formosa and ranks third in Japan. From the description, it is obviously of the small-tree Siamese type and has numerous resemblances to such varieties as Kao Pan and Kao Phuang.
Mato is the seed parent of the comparatively new and promising Tanikawa buntan, the pollen parent of which is presumed to be the Japanese Sanbôkan. That it is of
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "So far as can be determined, this fruit (Nagami or oval form) was first introduced into Europe in 1846 by Robert Fortune, a plant explorer and collector for the London Horticultural Society, who found it in China (Fortune 1846). it must have been sent to the United States soon thereafter, for it is described and illustrated in the February, 1850, edition of Downing's Horticulturist (Webber, 1943, p. 640). The round-fruited form Marumi was introduced from Japan into Florida in 1885, and the Meiwa and Hongkong kumquats were brought in by the U.S. Department of Agriculture between 1910 and 1912 (Webber 1943).
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone F-27-29): "Fortunella crassifolia. Origin: China, probably
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length medium; wings narrow, adjoining the blade. Leaflets one, margin entire, crenate/crenulate or bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades weakly conduplicate. Sun leaflet blades weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of leaflets freshly lemon-like. Fruit as broad as long or longer than broad; rind green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), or orange (12); rind texture smooth (1-3) or slightly rough (4-5); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh orange or yellow; taste acidic-sweet.
Hodgson (1967) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar:
"This species is the Ninpo, Meiwa or Neiha kinkan of Japan. The most distinctive features of this kumquat are the short oblong to round form and relatively large size of the fruit, the more numerous sections (commonly seven), the very thick and sweet rind and comparatively sweet flavor, and the low seed content (many fruits are seedless).
While Swingle originally (1915) considered it to be a valid species, he later concluded that this variety is a natural
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar (clone F-27-29): "Description: Very few seeds 3-5, rind sweet and very thick, less juice but best variety for fresh eating, thornless tree, less cold hardy than Nagami, avoid Swingle rootstock, P. tri frequently used. Season: November-April"
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-112): "Melogold is a triploid
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "Minneola is a
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone F-60-5): "A tangelo originated from open pollinated seedlings at the Glen St. Mary Nursery in Dundee (Polk County)....Origin: Florida, Duncan x Dancy, USDA release 1931."
Hodgson (1967) additionally noted that:
"To avoid confusion with the
"During the past decade, Murcott has been planted rather extensively, in Florida. The 1961 plantings, mostly nonbearing, were reported at 5,400 acres and the 1961-62 crop at approximately 175,000 boxes (70-lb equivalents). Because of its rich flavor and deep orange-colored flesh and juice, Murcott is a favorite with gift fruit packers."
OriginHodgson (1967) noted that:
"The origin of Murcott is unknown and its history obscure. The oldest known budded tree, from which the present commercial acreage largely if not entirely traces, still remains on the place formerly owned by a nurseryman, Charles Murcott Smith, in Bayview, Clearwater, Florida, and is thought to have been budded about 1922 (Ziegler and Wolfe 1961). It is believed that the budwood was obtained from a neighbor, R. D. Hoyt of Safety Harbor, who was a cooperator in the citrus breeding program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which maintained a nursery of citrus
It is the consensus of Florida horticulturists that this variety is a tangor of unknown origin resulting from the breeding program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture."
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone 130-1): "Open pollinated seedlings near Bradenton in Manatee County....Origin: Florida, tangor, unknown origin, named after Charlie Murcott Smith"
Swingle and Reece (1967) additionally noted that:
"The anomalous species M. stenocarpa, having unifoliolate leaves, is still too inadequately known to permit discussion of its relationships.
It is clear that Murraya is not closely related to Citrus; nevertheless Citrus has at least once been successfully grafted on M. paniculata, a vigorous species easily propagated from cuttings. Dr. Toxopeus, working in Java (1936, p. 6), reported having crossed Citrus and M. paniculata, but he obtained only stunted
Tanaka (1929a) published a monographic study of the species of Murraya (under the genus name Chalcas) which has greatly helped in understanding this genus. He was the first taxonomist to transfer Micromelum glabrum Guill. and Atalantia stenocarpa Drake to the genus Murraya."
Citrus x aurantium L., pro sp. [Sour Orange Group] (sensu Mabberley 2004, Bayer et al. 2009); Citrus aurantium L.
Citrus reticulata Blanco
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-50-48): "C. natsudaidai. Origin: Japan, Japanese summer grapefruit or orange, possible
Hodgson (1967) noted on the naming and origin of the cultivar under Poorman:
"Although obviously not an orange, the names Poorman Orange or Poorman are employed for this fruit in Australia, where it first came to notice. Since it most resembles the grapefruit in both appearance and use and is the citrus fruit most extensively grown in New Zealand, the preferable name for this interesting and distinctive fruit would appear to be New Zealand Grapefruit.
That Poorman originated in the Orient is suggested by Bowman's statement (1956) that it was brought to Australia (presumably the fruit) from Shanghai by a Captain Simpson. The earliest description of record, given in a New South Wales nursery catalogue of 1820, indicates that the original introduction might have been a shaddock (pummelo); hence, the possibility exists that Poorman is of Australian origin. Since the seeds are monoembryonic, early references to the existence of clones varying appreciably in fruit characteristics, and to the possibility of
"Almost certainly Poorman is a pummelo
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "This variety originated from a cross between the satsuma mandarin (C. unshiu) and the Meiwa kumquat (F. crassifolia) made in Washington, D.C. by Eugene May of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It was described in 1931 (Swingle, Robinson, and Savage 1931) and introduced in 1932. Although it is a somewhat attractive ornamental and the fruit makes excellent marmalade, the orangequat has not become popular and remains an oddity or collection item."
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone F-77142): "Orangequat received budwood from Adams Citrus Nursery in 1977. Origin: Dr. E. May, USDA, Washington D.C.
Chiefland Budwood Facility. 2010. 2010 Annual report July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010. Bureau of Citrus Budwood Registration, Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Winter Haven.
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
Mabberley, D.J. 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae): A review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea 49: 481–498.
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Swingle, W.T., T.R. Robinson, and E.M. Savage. 1931. New citrus
Chiefland Budwood Facility. 2010. 2010 Annual report July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010. Bureau of Citrus Budwood Registration, Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Winter Haven.
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
Mabberley, D.J. 1997. A classification for edible Citrus (Rutaceae). Telopea 7: 167–172.
Mabberley, D.J. 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae): A review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea 49: 481–498.
Reece, P.C., C.J. Hearn, and F.E. Gardner. 1964. Nova tangelo—an early ripening
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
OriginHodgson (1967) noted that: "This very early ripening variety is a sister to the Lee, Osceola, and Robinson mandarins, all four resulting from a Clementine mandarin-Orlando tangelo cross made in 1942 by Gardner and Bellows of the U.S. Department of Agriculture at Orlando, Florida, and described and released in 1964 (Reece, Hearn, and Gardner 1964). Since its parents are strongly self-incompatible and more fruitful if cross-pollinated, it seems likely that Nova will exhibit the same characteristics."
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone SPB-800-41): "Nova is a USDA
Bayer, R.J., D.J. Mabberley, C. Morton, C.H. Miller, I.K. Sharma, B.E. Pfeil, S. Rich, R. Hitchcock, and S. Sykes. 2009. A molecular phylogeny of the orange subfamily (Rutaceae: Aurantioideae) using nine cpDNA sequences. American Journal of Botany 96: 668–685.
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
Mabberley, D.J. 1997. A classification for edible Citrus (Rutaceae). Telopea 7: 167–172.
Reece, P.C., C.J. Hearn, and F.E. Gardner. 1964. Nova tangelo—an early ripening
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "The name given to this class of
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "Orlando is of the same parentage as Minneola and Seminole—a
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar (clone F-57-5): "Origin: Same cross as Minneola in 1911, Florida."
NotesThe Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone F-57-5): "Its popularity is due to its use as a pollinator for other tangerine
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-111): "Oroblanco is a
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-134): "Orri mandarin was derived from irradiated budwood of Orah mandarin (a Temple x Dancy
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone 874): "This is the Glen St. Mary Nursery’s Owari Satsuma selection that was entered into the budwood program in 2005 by Mr. Barwald of Flying Dragon Citrus Nursery."
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone F-60-23/F-60-25): "Seed from 19-10-5, a selection entered in 1953 from Reynolds Citrus Grove & Nursery Ocala. Origin: Japan, natural
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "This variety is of ancient and unknown Japanese origin presumably from the old province of Owari, whence the name. While still important in the older districts it has largely been displaced by derivative varieties that have arisen from it through bud variation. What is believed to be true Owari was introduced into the United States more than fifty years ago and, since recent Japanese descriptions of it are not available, the characterizations given here are adapted from Webber (1943). Two nucellar selections, Silverhill Owari and Frost Owari, have been derived from it in the United States and are currently recommended. Kara, a variety of some interest in California, is a
Hodgson (1967) noted that:
"This early ripening, high quality variety, the fruit of which has considerable resemblance to a sweet orange, originated from a Minneola tangelo X Clementine mandarin cross made by Gardner and Bellows of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1942. Page was described and released in 1963 by P. C. Reece and F. E. Gardner at the U.S. Horticultural Field Station, Orlando, Florida. It is recommended for Florida conditions and the fruit may be undesirably small in arid climates. Cross-pollination should be provided until the facts in that connection have been determined.
While officially released as an orange, technically speaking this variety should probably be referred to the tangelo
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone SPB-800-2): "Released by the USDA in 1963,
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "Pixie is a second generation seedling (
Cameron, J.W., R.K. Soost, and H.B. Frost. 1965. Encore and Pixie—two new mandarin
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
Mabberley, D.J. 1997. A classification for edible Citrus (Rutaceae). Telopea 7: 167–172.
Mabberley, D.J. 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae): A review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea 49: 481–498.
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Hodgson (1967) noted that:
"Both fruit and plant are clearly citron in most respects, and there can be little doubt that Ponderosa is a
Ponderosa is of importance primarily as an oddity and ornamental, although the fruit can be used as a lemon substitute. It is used somewhat as a tubbed plant in patios but most commonly as a dooryard ornamental in California and Florida."
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-203-8): "A seedling collected in 1976 by Leon Hebb for planting in the Florida Citrus Arboretum. The Ponderosa is not a true lemon; it originated in 1886 as a chance seedling found in Hagerstown, Maryland."
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "This very early maturing, rather large-fruited variety is a sister to Lee and Osceola, all three resulting from a Clementine mandarin-Orlando tangelo cross made by Gardner and Bellows of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Florida in 1942 and released in 1959 (Reece and Gardner 1959). Robinson is currently under commercial trial in Florida. Since its parents are both self-incompatible and more fruitful if cross-pollinated, it seems likely that Robinson will exhibit the same characteristics."
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar (clone SPB-800-3): "Robinson is a USDA
Chiefland Budwood Facility. 2010. 2010 Annual report July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010. Bureau of Citrus Budwood Registration, Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Winter Haven.
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Mabberley, D.J. 1997. A classification for edible Citrus (Rutaceae). Telopea 7: 167–172.
Mabberley, D.J. 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae). A review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea 49: 481–498.
Reece, P.C. and F.E. Gardner. 1959. Robinson, Osceola and Lee—new early maturing tangerine
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone 502-4-12): "Roble is not recommended to be budded on Swingle or other trifoliate
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns absent or not persistent; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length medium; wings narrow, adjoining the blade. Leaflets one, margin bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets sweetly orange-like. Fruit as broad as long or longer than broad; rind green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), or orange (12); rind texture smooth (1-3) or slightly rough (4-5); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh yellow; taste grapefruit-like.
Hodgson (1967) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar: "This Florida variety has a relatively small, nearly round, orange-yellow, seedy fruit of sweet flavor that lacks the typical grapefruit bitterness and aroma and is suggestive of sweet orange. While a distinctive variety, Royal has resemblances, notably in flavor and other respects, to such varieties as Triumph, Imperial, Mott and Leonardy, which suggests that they comprise a natural group and may possibly be grapefruit-orange
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "Rusk, a Ruby orange and trifoliata
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "Sampson is a grapefruit and Dancy tangerine
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-159): "A mandarin
Bayer, R.J., D.J. Mabberley, C. Morton, C.H. Miller, I.K. Sharma, B.E. Pfeil, S. Rich, R. Hitchcock, and S. Sykes. 2009. A molecular phylogeny of the orange subfamily (Rutaceae: Aurantioideae) using nine cpDNA sequences. American Journal of Botany 96: 668–685.
Cameron, J.W. and R.K. Soost. 1961. Chandler—an early-ripening
Chiefland Budwood Facility. 2010. 2010 Annual report July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010. Bureau of Citrus Budwood Registration, Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Winter Haven.
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
Mabberley, D.J. 1997. A classification for edible Citrus (Rutaceae). Telopea 7: 167–172.
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length short or medium; wings narrow, adjoining the blade. Leaflets one, margin crenate/crenulate, shade leaflet blades weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets somewhat to strongly malodorous. Fruit as broad as long or longer than broad; rind yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), or orange (12); rind texture slightly rough (4-5); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh orange; taste acidic-sweet.
Hodgson (1967) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar:
"Fruit small, round to oval; often necked; color deep reddish orange; sharply acid; nearly seedless. Tree moderately vigorous, upright, nearly thornless; leaves mainly unifoliolate.
This Oval kumquat and Rusk citrange
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
Mabberley, D.J. 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae): A review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea 49: 481–498.
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Swingle, W.T. and T.R. Robinson. 1923. Two important new types of citrous
Hodgson (1967) noted under the synonymous Smooth Seville: "This is an old Australian fruit that is thought to have originated as a seedling of unknown parentage and has generally been regarded as a sweet orange and grapefruit
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous or pubescent; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns absent or not persistent or straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous or pubescent, length short, medium or long; wings absent, if present, narrow or medium, adjoining the blade. Leaflets one, margin entire or bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets spicy or peppery, freshly lemon-like, or mandarin-like. Fruit broader than long, as broad as long, or longer than broad; rind green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), or orange (12); rind texture slightly rough (4-5) or medium rough (6-7); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh orange or yellow; taste sour.
Notes ReferencesCottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
ResourcesCrown compact or dense; not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous or pubescent; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns absent or not persistent or straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous or pubescent, length short, medium or very long; wings absent, if present, narrow, medium or wide, adjoining the blade or tucking beneath blade. Leaflets one, margin entire, crenate/crenulate, bluntly toothed or serrate/serrulate, shade leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets sweetly orange-like, spicy, peppery, or somewhat to strongly malodorous. Fruit broader than long, as broad as long, or longer than broad; rind variegated, light green with some break to yellow (5), green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), orange (12), or red-orange (13); rind texture smooth (1-3), slightly rough (4-5), medium rough (6-7), or rough (8); firmness leathery; navel absent or present; flesh orange or yellow; taste acidic-sweet or sour.
Swingle and Reece (1967) provided the following additional notes on the species:
“A medium-sized tree up to 10 m high, with a rounded top; twigs angled when young, with single, slender spines, often short, or stout spines up to 5-8 cm long on rapidly growing shoots; leaves medium-sized, ovate, bluntly pointed at tip, broadly rounded to cuneate at base; petioles 2-3 cm long, rather broadly winged, often 1.2-1.8 cm wide at top, but sometimes narrower, 1 cm or less, narrowing rapidly to the wingless base; flowers large, very fragrant with oil of neroli; 5-12 per cent[sic] male (staminate only); fruits subglobose, usually slightly depressed at both base and top, peel thick, with a rather rough surface, becoming brilliant orange with a reddish tint at maturity; locules 10-12, filled with sharply acid pulp and numerous seeds; fruit becoming hollow at center as it matures, and then able to float in water. (See Hodgson's account of the cultivated varieties of the sour orange in chap. 4 of this work)”
“The chief morphological differences are as follows: In the sour orange the petioles are much more broadly winged than in the sweet, and the leaf blades are narrower and more acutely pointed at the apex, and less rounded and more cuneate at the base. Ruggieri has shown (1935) that the petioles of the sour orange are much the longer, averaging 25.89 mm, whereas those of the sweet orange average only 15.91 mm; in other words, the sour orange petioles average 63 per cent longer than those of the sweet orange. The fruits of the sour orange are of a brighter orange color and have a rougher peel; moreover, in the sour orange the oil glands are situated beneath minute sunken areas in the peel, whereas in the sweet orange the tissue covering the oil glands is often convex.
Uphof reported (1932, pp. 133-35, fig. 4) that he found no male flowers on several cultivated varieties of the sweet orange (C. sinensis), but that he did find from 5 to 12 per cent[sic] of male flowers on the sour seedling oranges of Florida (C. aurantium ). The sour orange, according to Uphof, "probably is very close to the sweet orange but from the standpoint of the production of male flowers constitutes a transition, so to speak, toward the lemons, limes and citrons." Uphof found no male flowers on cultivated varieties of the grapefruit (C. paradisi ). Many trees of the Dancy tangerine (C. reticulata) showed no male flowers (one small tree overloaded with a very heavy bloom had one single male flower among the thousands examined). Tangelos (
In view of these facts, it is clear that the occurrence in appreciable numbers of male flowers in C. aurantium constitutes an important differential character separating this species from C. sinensis.
The ethereal oil in the leaves, flowers, and fruits of the sour orange is of very different odor than that in the sweet (more agreeable and aromatic in the sour orange) and has a different composition. Also the oil recovered from the petals of the sour orange, neroli oil, finds a different use in perfumery and has a higher value than that of sweet orange flowers. This oil, considered by perfumery experts to be "indispensable to finer perfumery," is said to owe its high value to small amounts (only 0.4 to 1.0 per cent) of "a nitrogenous compound of exceeding fragrance," methyl anthranilate, NH2 · C6H4 · COOCH3 (see Gildemeister and Hoffmann, 1922, pp. 93 and 96; and Finnemore, 1926, pp. 436-41). This remarkable substance is not found in the oil extracted from the petals of the sweet orange (Theulier, 1902). The pulp of the sour orange is intensely sour, with a bitterish aftertaste, in contrast to the sweet, agreeable flavor of the sweet orange.”
“The sour orange also shows physiological differences from the sweet orange. It stands winter cold better and has almost complete immunity to the foot rot, or mal di gomma, so destructive to the sweet orange in some localities. However, the sour orange is severely attacked by the scab fungus, Elsinoë fawcetti, which does not attack the sweet orange.
Besides the morphological, chemical, and physiological differences…there are further anatomical difference[s] discovered by Ruggieri (1935) between the sour and the sweet orange in the separative layer of articulation that lies between the petiole and the leaf blade, which may be summed up as follows: (1) The pith in the lower articulation joint where the petiole joins the twig is much more flattened from the top to the bottom in the sweet orange than in the sour. In the sour orange the ratio of the pith to the woody cylinder averages 1:1.4, measured in a horizontal direction, and 1:2.2, in a vertical direction, whereas in the sweet orange the ratio of pith to woody cylinder is 1:1.5 horizontally (about the same as in the sour orange) and 1:4.5 in the vertical (dorsiventral) direction, or only half as thick as the pith of the sour orange petiole. (2) The cells of the interior layers of the cortical parenchyma of the upper articulation joint where the petiole joins the leaf blade are isodiametric and are 12 to 20.5 mu in diameter in the sour orange but are 20 to 27 mu in diameter in the sweet orange, or nearly one-half larger than in the sour orange. (3) The pericycle fibers that form a more or less interrupted sheath around the woody cylinder are strongly thickened in the sour orange but are little thickened, if any, in the sweet orange.
B. Miyazaba, S. Matsubara, and T. Kawaida (1928, p. 189, figs. 4, 5) have also found other anatomical characters that separate the sour orange from the sweet. Comparing the common sour orange (kaisei-to) of Japan with the Washington navel orange (tento) in leaf structure, they found that the sour orange leaf is thin (197 to 274 mu, the average of the ten measurements being 243.38 mu), whereas the sweet orange leaf is about 11.1 per cent thicker (247 to 334 mu, the average of the ten measurements being 270.33 mu ). The two layers of palisade tissue are about the same thickness in the two species, but the spongy tissue shows a wide variation, being only 148 to 189 mu thick in the sour orange leaf (the ten measurements averaging 167.28 mu) but ranging from 165 to 231 mu in the sweet orange leaf (the ten measurements averaging 197.51 mu), or nearly 17 per cent thicker. They also found that the number of stomata is somewhat greater in the sweet orange epidermis than in that of the sour orange, averaging 23.44 in the microscope field of vision for the sweet orange and 20 for the sour orange, or 17 per cent more for the sweet orange.
In view of this array of anatomical, physiological and chemical differences between the sour and the sweet orange it is obvious that they are distinct species even if the gross morphological differences between them are small.”
Hodgson (1967) provided the following additional notes on the species:
“While the sour and sweet oranges have close resemblances there are important differences which clearly justify their separation into different species. The sour orange leaf is somewhat darker in color and more taper-pointed and the petiole is longer and more broadly winged. The fruit is usually flatter and more deeply colored and the rind thicker and more loosely adherent. The rind surface is generally rougher and is minutely pitted with sunken oil glands. The core is normally hollow and the flavor sour with pronounced bitterness in both carpellary membranes and albedo. Most distinctive and easily recognizable differences relate to the odor of the oils in the leaves and rind. In the sour orange the leaf oil is agreeable and distinctive, whereas in the sweet orange it is merely pleasant. Sour orange rind oil is strong and somewhat disagreeable in contrast with the sweet and pleasant odor of sweet orange rind oil. Moreover, the chalazal spot is purple-tinted in the sour orange, reddish-brown in the sweet oranges in general, red in the deeply pigmented blood oranges, and cream-colored in the sugar or acidless oranges (Chapot and Praloran, 1955).
In comparison with the sweet orange, the sour orange tree is more upright and thorny and much more resistant to such unfavorable environmental conditions as frost, excess soil moisture, and neglect. However, the sour orange does not attain as large size as the sweet orange. It is also much more resistant to the widespread gummosis (mal di gomma) disease. In addition, it is susceptible to verrucosis (scab) and markedly intolerant to the tristeza virus when used as a rootstock, while the sweet orange is highly resistant to both diseases.”
Citrus sudachi hort. ex Shirai = Citrus ichang grandis
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-800-5): "A USDA
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "Of the same parentage as Pina, Minneola, and Seminole, Sunshine has not achieved commercial importance, but is said to be promising as a rootstock in Florida."
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-833-13): "C. reticulata
Bayer, R.J., D.J. Mabberley, C. Morton, C.H. Miller, I.K. Sharma, B.E. Pfeil, S. Rich, R. Hitchcock, and S. Sykes. 2009. A molecular phylogeny of the orange subfamily (Rutaceae: Aurantioideae) using nine cpDNA sequences. American Journal of Botany 96: 668–685.
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
Lee, H.A. 1918. Further data on the susceptibility of rutaceous plants to citrus-canker. Journal of Agricultural Research 15: 661–665.
Mabberley, D. J. 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae): A review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea 49: 481—498.
Peltier, G.L. and W.J. Frederich. 1920. Relative susceptibility to citrus canker of different species and
Citrus x virgata Mabb. (sensu Mabberley 2004); Microcitrus australasica (F. Muell.) Swingle X Microcitrus australis (Planch.) Swingle (sensu Swingle and Reece 1967; sensu Tanaka sec. Cottin 2002)
SynonymsLemon-shaped Australian Wild, Virgata (sec. Cottin 2002)
OriginSwingle and Reece (1967) noted that: "This remarkable
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length medium; wings absent. Leaflets one, margin bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades flat, sun leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate. Leaflets not scented when crushed. Fruit as broad as long or longer than broad; rind dark green (3), medium green (4), or light green with some break to yellow (5); rind texture slightly rough (4-5) or medium rough (6-7); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh green/greenish.
Swingle and Reece (1967) provided the following additional notes on the
"Twigs very slender and very numerous, usually only lightly angled, very minutely and rather sparsely puberulous; bud scales brownish, inconspicuously ciliate; nodes 5-13 mm long, with a single slender, sharp, axillary spine, 4-12 mm long; leaves on vigorous leading twigs 20-30 X 8-13 mm, glabrous, narrowly elliptical or lozenge-shaped, with undulate or irregular, shallowly crenate-dentate margins, narrowed at the apex, sometimes with an emarginate tip, cuneate at the base, with numerous lateral veins arising at a small angle (25°-35°) with the midrib, with some cross and some subparallel veinlets, narrowed into very short petioles, 2-3 mm long which are sparingly and finely pubescent above; leaves on lateral twigs 10-20 X 3-8 mm, linear-elliptic or narrowly lozenge-shaped, the smaller leaves entire, the larger with undulate or irregular, shallowly dentate margins, petioles 1.2-2 mm long; fruits elongate-obovoid or ellipsoid, 35-50 X 20-28 mm, with the tip abruptly rounded, numerous slightly protuberant oil glands, circular in outline and about 0.5 mm diam., peel 2 mm thick, yellowish-green when ripe (near lime green, Ridgway, pl. 31); inner portion 0.4-0.5 mm thick, smooth, of firmer texture than the outer, segments 5-8 central core solid, very narrow, ovule traces numerous; pulp-vesicles ovoid, tapering to an acute point above, broadly rounded at base, 4.5-7 X 2-4 mm, borne on slender stalks, 2-7 mm long, attached to inner wall of the ovary but not to segment walls, not adhering to one another, containing an acid juice; seeds none. The ripe fruits have a spicy, not disagreeable odor. The flower buds are spinel red, and the new growth is very dark dull dusky purple (Ridgway, 1912)."
"The leaves are intermediate in shape between the two parent species, but, owing to the enormous number of twigs and consequent great profusion of leaves, they are not intermediate in size between those of the parent species, but nearer that of the small-leaved parent, the finger-lime. The leaf margins are more crenate than those of either parent. The small twigs of both parents are minutely ciliate, but the larger angled twigs, especially of the finger-lime, are almost glabrous. In the
Swingle and Reece (1967) additionally noted that: "This
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Mabberley, D.J. 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae): A review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea 49: 481–498.
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Ridgway R. 1912. Color standards and color nomenclature. The Author, Washington, D.C. 43 pp.
ResourcesSearch for this cultivar in NCBI Entrez
Hodgson (1967) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar:
"The origin of the Tahiti or Persian lime is unknown, and its history is obscure. The name Tahiti arises from the fact that this type of lime was introduced in California from Tahiti sometime during the period of 1850 to 1880. As the Persian lime, it was introduced into Australia as early as 1824 (Bowman 1955), possibly from Brazil, since it is mentioned in connection with the Celeta (Seleta) and Bahia orange varieties of that country. The origin of the name Persian is unknown, however, although it seems likely that this fruit came to the Mediterranean area via Persia as did the citron. Currently, it is not to be found in Persia, however (Chapot 1965). The Sakhesli lime of the island of Djerba (Tunisia) is clearly of the same type and has been grown there for a long time, presumably centuries. H. Chapot, the distinguished French citrus systematist, reports that he has also seen old trees of this fruit in Algeria and that the name Sakhesli means "from Sakhos," an Arabic name for the island of Chios (Greece).
While the only commercial variety of the Tahiti lime apparently produces no viable pollen and is normally seedless, Reece and Childs (1962) succeeded in obtaining 250 seeds from a commercial canning plant in Florida from which 140 seedlings were planted in an orchard and 77 survived and ultimately fruited. A high degree of monoembryony is indicated as only two seedlings proved to be indistinguishable from the parent clone. The remaining seedlings exhibited a very wide range in species characters, but approximately 60 per cent were predominantly citron, lemon, or seedy acid lime. From these data, Reece and Childs concluded that this lime is clearly of
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes under Persian (clone SPB-7): "The original tree was entered into the budwood program in 1954 by Coral Reef Nursery as Li-38-1-1-X. This tree was owned by E. J. Norman of Homestead said to be one of the oldest in Dade county. The current clone is a shoot-tip graft of the original clone. Also known as Tahiti. Origin: Unknown, introduced to California from Tahiti. "
DescriptionCrown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns recurved; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length short or medium; wings narrow, adjoining the blade. Leaflets one, margin crenate/crenulate or bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets freshly lemon-like. Fruit as broad as long or longer than broad; rind dark green (3), medium green (4), or light green with some break to yellow (5); rind texture slightly rough (4-5); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh green/greenish; taste sour.
Hodgson (1967) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar:
"Fruit medium-small (like small lemon), oval, obovate, oblong or short-elliptical; base usually rounded but sometimes slight necked and faintly furrowed; apex rounded; areolar area elevated into a low nipple. Seeds are or lacking. Rind thin; surface smooth, tightly adherent; color pale lemon-yellow at maturity. Segments about 10; axis small and usually solid. Flesh color pale greenish-yellow; tender, juicy; very acid and with true lime flavor. Somewhat everbearing, mainly in winter (earlier in hot climates such as southern Florida). If left on tree past maturity, some fruits develop a peculiar breakdown in the areolar area at the stylar end.
Tree vigorous, broad-spreading, drooping, medium to medium-large, nearly thornless; foliage dense green. Leaves medium in size, broadly lanceolate, and petioles winged. Flower buds and flowers medium in size and flowering occurs throughout year, mainly in spring. Purple coloration usually faint and evanescent in both flowers and shoots. Fully as cold-resistant as the true lemons."
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following additional notes on the synonymous Persian lime (clone SPB-7): "Description: Normally seedless with a high degree of monoembryony, most likely a
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-140): "A mandarin
Hodgson (1967) noted that the so-called Temple orange is referred to as a natural tangor.
Hodgson (1967) additionally noted that:
"The origin and history of this variety are somewhat obscure. According to Ziegler and Wolfe (1961) and Harding (1959), it originated in Jamaica and came to the attention of a Florida fruit buyer about 1896, who ran across a seedling tree of outstanding quality. The buyer sent budwood to several friends at Oviedo, Florida, who budded a few trees of this "Jamaica" orange. About 1900, Allan Mosely, an orchard caretaker in the Winter Park area, is said to have obtained budwood from one of the friends, J. H. King. Mosely budded a tree in a young orchard under his care which in 1914 came into the ownership of L. A. Hakes. The following year Hakes called the tree to the attention of a neighbor, W. C. Temple, former manager of the Florida Citrus Exchange, who in turn reported its unusual qualities to his friend and former associate, M. E. Gillett, president of Buckeye Nurseries, a leading citrus nursery. Exclusive propagation rights were obtained in 1916. The variety was named and introduced in 1919 and was promoted on a large scale.
Once its limitations and adaptations became evident, Temple continued to increase in popularity to the point where both acreage and production now exceed that of the Dancy tangerine."
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone 33-15): "A Polk County selection from near Lake Daisy in Dundee, entered into the budwood program in 1956 by Southern Groves Association....Origin: Jamaica, probably
Hodgson (1967) additionally noted that:
Hodgson (1967) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar:
"Of the so-called natural tangors, Temple is much the most important variety. While it is obviously a mandarin
Because of its high heat requirement and sensitivity to cold and both rootstock and soil influences, Temple is decidedly limited in its range of commercial adaptation. In this respect, it is somewhat similar to the King mandarin. Within its range of adaptation, the fruit is of outstanding attractiveness and quality, but elsewhere it is highly disappointing and commercially worthless. Temple is at its best in Florida when propagated on sour orange or Cleopatra mandarin rootstocks and grown on the heavier-textured soils. Satisfactory quality in California is attained only in the hottest of the interior districts. Elsewhere, Temple is poorly colored and much too tart for most palates."
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Mabberley, D.J. 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae): A review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea 49: 481–498.
Swingle, W.T. and T.R. Robinson. 1923. Two important new types of citrous
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third year twig surface striate; thorns absent or not persistent, recurved or straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length medium, long or very long; wings narrow or medium, adjoining the blade. Leaflets three, margin bluntly toothed or serrate/serrulate, rachis wings absent, shade leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades flat, weakly or strongly conduplicate. Leaflets not scented when crushed. Fruit broader than long, as broad as long, or longer than broad; rind yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), orange (12), or red-orange (13); rind texture slightly rough (4-5); medium rough (6-7) or rough (8); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh green/greenish; orange or yellow; taste sour.
Swingle and Reece (1967) provided the following additional notes on the genus:
"Poncirus trifoliata has somewhat similar dimorphic branches and leaves but shows much less variation in the size of the leaves produced on the leaf spurs."
"Poncirus stands alone in [the true Citrus fruit trees] in having trifoliolate, deciduous leaves and winter buds well protected by bud scales. It has pleiomerous ovaries with six to eight locules, with many ovules in each locule. In these ovarial characters it agrees with Microcitrus and Citrus."
"Small trees with single, stout, axillary spines and palmately 3-foliolate, deciduous leaves, twigs dimorphic; (a) normal twigs with internodes as long or longer than the petioles, (b) foliage spurs, which develop from dormant buds on twigs of previous year, with extremely short internodes (less than 0.5 mm long) bearing 1-5 normal foliage leaves but no spines; flowers developing singly at the nodes in spring from scale-covered flower buds formed early in the previous summer on last year's twigs that lose their leaves during the winter; sepals 5, petals 5, long, slender, spathulate or clawed; stamens 4 or more times the number of petals, with free, glabrous, slender filaments; ovary subglobose, pubescent, seated on a short, shallow, cup-shaped disk broader than the ovary; ovary with 6-8 (sometimes fewer or more), usually 7 locules; ovules 4-8 in 2 rows in each locule; style short, thick, merging into the slightly clavate stigma; fruits globose or short-pyriform, subsessile, 3-5 cm diam., finely pubescent, with lemon-yellow, soft, orange-like peel with abundant oil glands; pulp-vesicles elongate-conical, slender-stalked, bearing scattered, secretory, hair-like organs, and filled with acid pulp containing numerous droplets of acrid oil (or oily wax) in the center; seeds oval, plump, often with several supernumerary nucellar embryos; germination hypogeous; young seedlings developing at first bract-like cataphylls, then intermediate forms that soon merge into normal 3-foliolate leaves.
This remarkable genus, although evidently closely related to Citrus, Fortunella, Microcitrus, and Eremocitrus, has many strikingly aberrant characters. In the first place, it differs from all the other True Citrus Fruit Trees, which are found in only tropical or subtropical regions, in having penetrated far into the temperate zone in northeastern Asia; in so doing it has become a deciduous tree with small leaf buds and larger scale-covered flower buds (formed in early summer) that pass the winter on the leafless terminal twigs and open before (and sometimes with) the leaves early in the following spring. The trifoliolate leaves are doubtless a survival of the foliage of some remote ancestral plant. All the other True Citrus Fruit Trees have unifoliolate leaves (except Clymenia, which has simple leaves) that persist on the tree for two or more years and cannot endure severe cold.
The pith of the stem shows transverse plates composed of thick-walled cells, not as yet found in any other genus related to Citrus (see Swingle, 1909). The pulp-vesicles carry scattered hair-like organs that bear at their expanded tips a number of rounded, thick-walled cells with numerous small, oblique fissures. These organs secrete a viscous fluid that allows the pulp-vesicles to slip past one another. These organs are unknown in any other genus of the orange subfamily. The immature fruits contain ponciridin, a glucoside analogous to hesperidin, but not found in Citrus.
Poncirus
The pulp-vesicles of Poncirus contain numerous droplets of oil. Penzig (1887, pp. 161-62) discovered these inclusions and found that some of these oil globules were semisolid and more or less brittle. Oil droplets are also found in the pulp-vesicles of Citrus, being very abundant in the species of Citrus which belong to the subgenus Papeda.
Poncirus is not easy to place in a phylogenetic series along with Citrus and other related genera arranged so as to show the course of evolutionary progress. Doubtless many "missing links" between it and the ancestors of Citrus have perished, leaving Poncirus as perhaps the most isolated and aberrant genus of all the True Citrus Fruit Trees."
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous or pubescent; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns absent or not persistent or straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous or pubescent, length short, medium, long or very long; wings narrow, medium, or wide, adjoining the blade or tucking beneath blade. Leaflets one or three, margin entire (by misinterpretation), crenate/crenulate or bluntly toothed, rachis wings absent, shade leaflet blades flat, weakly or strongly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades flat, weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets sweetly orange-like, spicy or peppery, freshly lemon-like, somewhat to strongly malodorous, mandarin-like, or not scented. Fruit broader than long, as broad as long, or longer than broad; rind light green with some break to yellow (5), green-yellow (6), yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), orange (12), or red-orange (13); rind texture smooth (1-3), slightly rough (4-5), medium rough (6-7), or rough (8); firmness leathery; navel absent; rarely present; flesh green/greenish, orange, or yellow; taste grapefruit-like, acidic-sweet or sour.
Notes ReferencesCottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson (1967) additionally noted that:
"Its lack of bitterness and rich flavor are suggestive of the orange and some have thought that it might be a natural orangelo (orange-grapefruit
The Jackson variety of South Africa is said to be a seedless budsport of Triumph."
Hodgson (1967) noted that:
"According to Webber (1943), the rather unusual name for this natural tangelo is said to have been given to this unattractive but delicious fruit in the Canadian market which first received it. It was referred to as the "Ugly" citrus fruit. Soon thereafter, the name Ugli became the copyrighted trademark of G. G. R. Sharp, the principal and for some time the only Jamaican exporter.
From the information he was able to obtain, Webber (1943) concluded that Ugli originated as a chance seedling of unknown parentage near Brown's Town, Jamaica. It came to notice in 1914 and was propagated by F. G. Sharp at Trout Hall and first exported about 1934 by his son, G. G. R. Sharp. It is obviously a
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-74): "Source tree from DPI pathology greenhouse in Winter Haven in 1978. The Ugli variety was discovered near Brown’s Town, Jamaica in 1914."
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "Umatilla is a
Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; second- or third-year twig surface striate; thorns absent or not persistent; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length short; wings absent, if present, narrow, adjoining the blade. Leaflets one, margin bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades flat, weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets mandarin-like. Fruit broader than long; rind yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), or orange (12); rind texture smooth (1-3) or slightly rough (4-5); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh orange; taste acidic-sweet.
Hodgson (1967) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar:
"Fruit medium-large, reddish-orange, and broadly oblate. Moderately seedy with smooth, medium-thick, moderately adherent rind and hollow axis. Flesh orange-colored; tender, very juicy; flavor rich but acid. Seeds monoembryonic and cotyledons green. Medium-late maturity.
Tree slow growing, spreading, with considerable resemblance to satsuma; productive."
Hodgson (1967) additionally noted that Umatilla is an Owari satsuma-Ruby blood orange
Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.
Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.
Mabberley, D.J. 1997. A classification for edible Citrus (Rutaceae). Telopea 7: 167–172.
Mabberley, D.J. 2004. Citrus (Rutaceae): A review of recent advances in etymology, systematics and medical applications. Blumea 49: 481–498.
Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.
Swingle, W.T., T.R. Robinson, and E.M. Savage. 1931. New citrus
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-814-20): "Seed and budwood collected from USDA Whitmore Farm (D. Hutchinson) in 1973. Origin: Italy, probable citron x lemon
Hodgson (1967) noted that: "Wekiwa is a
The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone DPI-141): "Is a mandarin
Swingle and Reece (1967) noted that:
"This well-known citrus fruit tree of China and Japan is doubtless another ichandarin resulting from an accidental cross-pollination of some cultivated variety of the mandarin orange by the Ichang papeda, probably accomplished by some insect. The Yuzu is unlike either parent species in many important taxonomic characters; however, there has been little opportunity to learn its characters or experiment with it since one parent, C. ichangensis, is a wild species (apparently never cultivated in China) that was not discovered until 1913. The
"The Yuzu, which shows many points of similarity with C. ichangensis, is doubtless another of these
"Meyer, in October, 1914, found this hardy citrus fruit tree in northwestern China, in the latitude of Atlanta, Georgia, at Hsi-Chi village, near Siku (Lat. 33° 44' N., Long. 104° 30' E.), in the southern part of Kansu Province. It was growing at an altitude of 610 to 1,372 meters (2,000 to 4,500 ft.) along with walnuts, persimmons, pomegranates, and the Trachycarpus palm. Meyer (1918) described the fruit as follows: "The fruits were loose-skinned, round flattened, the size of mandarin oranges, color of rind light yellow; rind full of oil glands, smelling like a fine lemon; segments separating easily; fairly juicy and of an agreeable sharp sour taste; contains plenty of large seeds." Meyer's photograph, taken at His-Chi, Kansu Province, was published by Tanaka (1922, pl. facing p. 243).
Two strains of this
Tanaka has directed attention (1933) to certain Chinese records which seem to prove that this plant was known and cultivated in ancient China under the name yu. This name is still used for it in Japan but not in China, where the name is now applied to the pummelo (C. grandis), a very different species having much larger fruits with agreeably flavored sweet pulp. The Yuzu is now called ch'êng tzu in China and was so called as early as 1108 A.D. by Tang Shên-wei in his great illustrated herbal, the Chêng lei pên ts'ao, published in that year.
In the "Spring and Summer Annals" of Lü Pu-wei, who died in 237 B.C., the yu of that epoch was described as follows (as translated by Michael J. Hagerty): "Some are sweet and some are sour. The sour are called hu kan or Barbarian sweet. At present the common people sometimes speak of the ch'êng as yu but this is wrong." This last sentence proves, as noted by Hagerty, that there were already in the third century B.C. two different fruits called yu. It seems probable that the Japanese name yuzu, which corresponds to yu tzu in the Chinese spoken language, has been kept with its ancient meaning in Japan, but that the meaning has for many centuries been lost in China.
The Yuzu was named Citrus junos (as a good species) by Tanaka, but, as has been shown above, it is very probably a
"The Yuzu, a hardy variety widely grown in Japan and sparingly in northern China as a substitute for the lemon, has been considered by some to be a good natural species of Citrus. However, it is now found to be a
Citrus ID Edition 2
October, 2011
idtools.org
