This tool is part of the Citrus Resource

Citrus ID

 

Baianinha

 

Synonyms

 

Bahianinha, Baianina Piracicaba, Piralima (sec. Cottin 2002)

Cultivar or taxon

 

Citrus x aurantium L., pro sp. [Sweet Orange Group] (sensu Mabberley 1997, Bayer et al. 2009); Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck (sensu Swingle and Reece 1967; sensu Tanaka sec. Cottin 2002)

Origin

 

Hodgson (1967) noted that: "The presumption is that this variety originated as a bud mutation from the Washington or Bahia navel orange. Webber (1943) has presented evidence, however, that it may not have originated in Brazil, as commonly supposed, since it appeared in a planting of navel orange trees made at Piracicaba, São Paulo State, about 1907-08 with budded trees imported from the United States, presumably Florida. That this variety is somewhat unstable and has subsequently given rise to other clones is clear from the literature and the existence of the two smaller-fruited selections mentioned above."

Description

 

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 or medium, adjoining the blade. Leaflets one, margins bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades weakly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets sweetly orange-like. 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); firmness leathery; navel absent or present; flesh orange; taste acidic-sweet.

Hodgson (1967) provides the following notes on distinguishing Baianinha fruit from Washington fruit: "(1) it averages considerably smaller in size; (2) the shape is slightly more oval; (3) it has a smaller and closed navel; and (4) the rind is thinner. The tree is said to be productive but smaller and less vigorous than the Washington variety." However, Hodgson (1967) also indicates that "In California, where this variety has been under observation for only a few years, the differences between this variety and Washington appear to be somewhat less than those reported in Brazil."

References

 

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. 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.

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.

Resources

 

Search for this cultivar in NCBI Entrez

Additional information on this cultivar at University of California: Riverside Citrus Variety Collection

 

Citrus ID Edition 2
October, 2011
idtools.org