Select the tab for the type of search. Each tab has everything you need to do to perform that type of search.

"The first fairly complete description of this species, under the name Citrus japonica, was published in 1784 by Thunberg in his Flora japonica; it reads in translation, as follows: "petiole winged, leaves acute, shrubby stem. Japanese: Kin Kan, vulgo Fime tats banna, Kaempf., Am. ex., Fase. V. p. 801. Growing here and there, often cultivated for its little fruits. Stem shrubby, compressed-subangulate, erect, glabrous, scarcely a foot high. Branches and branchlets alternate, compressed-angular, spinose, glabrous, erect, green. Spines solitary, in the axils of the leaves, erect divergent. Leaves few, with winged petioles, ovate, somewhat acute, entire, somewhat concave, glabrous, dark green above, paler below, erect, spreading, 1 in. [2.5 cm] long, with very minute glands ('poris'). Petioles winged. 1 line [2 mm] long. Flowers axillary, often solitary, rarely paired, pediculate, nodding. Pedicels glabrous, hanging down, 1 line [2 mm] long. Parianth, 1-phyllous, green, glabrous, minute, 5-toothed. Petals 5, white, oblong, somewhat concave, spreading, somewhat claw-like. Filaments 19, subulate, compressed, erect, in 5 more or less coherent bundles, connate, forming a cylinder, shorter than the corolla, nearly equal in length, white. Anthers oblong, small, yellow. Ovary superior, subglobose, glabrous. Style solitary, cylindrical, slightly shorter than the stamens, greenish white. Stigma simple, globose, yellow, striate, many-locular within. Fruit with fleshy peel, vesicular pulp, 9-locular [sic], the size of a cherry. Differs from the other species of Citrus especially in being a very small shrub with minute fruits; thus it can scarcely be considered as a variety of orange. It resembles Citrus medica in the axillary flowers, but differs in the winged petioles; it differs from the orange in the axillary flowers, which are solitary or paired, never in panicles. Fruit ripens in December and January, is very sweet, agreeable and edible."
"This description was evidently drawn from a very small plant, perhaps an artificially dwarfed one, such as are commonly grown in Japan. The very small leaves with axillary spines, and the fruits "the size of a cherry" strongly indicate that Thunberg was describing the round kumquat and not the oval kumquat (F. margarita). His plate of this plant published in 1800 shows a flowering twig with small leaves and well-developed axillary spines.
"Hume (1903 and 1926) described this species as follows:
"'Tree similar to Nagami [F. margarita], except that it is slightly thorny, and has the leaves somewhat smaller and rounder at the apex. Leaves oval; apex obtuse; margin crenate halfway down the length; veins slightly more conspicuous than in Nagami; borne on short rigid, inconspicuously winged petioles, 1/4 to 1/2 in. [6-13 mm] in length. Fruit spherical or somewhat oblate, 1 to 1 1/4 inches [2.5-3 cm] in diameter; golden yellow, short stalked; calyx small; rind smooth, thin, spicy to the taste and aromatic when bruised; oil cells large; pulp sparse; juice acid; sections four to seven; seeds one to three, small, oval, greenish; cotyledons two, greenish. Season same as Nagami.'" (Swingle and Reece, 1967, pp 331-332)

Information compiled by TJ Siebert. (RR Krueger, 06/03/2011)

Information and nice pictures from the UC Riverside Citrus Variety Collection

Information and nice pictures from CCPP

Although this accession was sanitized and released from quarantine by NCGRCD, it was given to CCPP for VI processing. (RR Krueger, 05/31/2018)

This accession appears identical to [PI 539554] - Moro. See notes this date [on records for PI 238796 and PI 539554. (EM Nauer, 2/4/1988

Nucellar Moro (PI 539554) appears to be identical to this one, why keep both? (EM Nauer, 10/1988)

Why indeed? PI 539442 is the VI'ed budline. It is not clear why Bill Bitters made this seedling selection but, as Ed Nauer stated, it does appears superfluous and is therefore inactivated. Never the less, additional information andpictures are available from the UC Riverside Citrus Variety Collection. (RR Krueger, 07/03/2015)

According to Soost et al (1961) (both citations), "The Frost Navel originated as a nucellar seedling obtained in 1917 by Dr HB Frost, from a Washington Nvel tree growing in the Rubidoux Tract property of the Citrus Experinment Station in Riverside. The parent tree was not especially selected for fruit quality or yield, but was one of several varieties used for a general study of juvenility and senescence in citrus. Four budded trees were planted in 1933 on the station grounds. These, and four other trees set out in 1942, have provided budwood which has been distributed to nurserymena and growers for trial since 1947."

Hodgson (1967) (pp 480-481) states that "Frost Washington is the first, and currently much the most important, nucellar budline of the Washington navel. It was originated by HB Frost, the geneticist and breeder, at the California Citrus Research Center, Riverside, from a controlled cross made in 1916. It was not released until 1952, however. Since that time its popularity has increased until it is now more widely planted in California, Arizona, and Morocco than any other clonal selection of Washington."

'Frost Washington' is known to decline when budded onto trifoliate rootstocks (Schneider and Pehrson, 1985). (Note: As per BIll Bitters in archival material maintained at NCGRCD, the title of the cited paper is misleading since the only navels examined were Frost nucellars). Frost Washington nucellar is less planted currently than at the time of the citations due to the availability of sanitized old line 'Washington' (maintained as PI 539360. (RR Krueger, 05/2011)

Information and nice pictures of 'Frost Washington' from the UC Riverside Citrus Variety Collection.

Information and fruit quality data from the Citrus Clonal Protection Program.

Genotype is the derived from PI 227929. See also the original Plant Inventory record. This was one of eight PI's (PI 227929 - PI 227936) of 'Shamouti' received as budwood at the same time from the same source. One cultivar name on file, 'Shamouti Israeli seedling #1', may refer to the fact that the different trees were seedlings in Israel.; however, this is not known. The source history of this accession is somewhat conjectural. It was apparently received by PIO, but how it got form there to California is not documented as far as known. There is a 'Shamouti' maintained by the USDA-ARS US Horticultural Research Laboratory and it is possible that it went from PIO to USHRL and from there to Riverside; however, this is not known. It does not appear to have gone to the US Date and Citrus Station in Indio before going to Lindcove. In any case, it was apparently rquarantined and released by USDA, then planted at Lindcove before being indexed and released by CCPP and moved to Riverside. CCPP archival materials definitely state that the source of the original tree at Lindcove was PI 227929. For more information, see the source mentioned by Ed Nauer and noted below. (RR Krueger, 11/10/2010)

View fruit quality data and other information from the CCPP.

View nice fotos and more information from the Citrus Variety Collection.

This is apparently one of 6 pummelos and pummelo hybrids imported from Hawaii in the mid- to late 1980's (letter from Richard Hamilton dated 03/19/1984 on file), the others being Kao Phuang, Thong Dee, Haiku B, Pauthel, and Puma. Several of these were already in the collection, so it is not clear why they were imported. They were acquired at the request of Bill Bitters. Possibly he felt the existing accessions were not typical. More information on Kao Pan is available in Reinking and Groff (1921), Groff (1927), Hodgson, 1967 (pp 536 - 537), and Martin and Cooper (1977). (RR Krueger, 2014-06-09)

Additional information on Kao Pan is available from Citrus Variety Collection and Citrus Clonal Protection Program.

This accession appears identical to [PI 539550] - Moro. Nearly seedless, flavor fair, not as good as Ruby or Tarocco. Best external color is on fruits on north side of trees. See blood orange color comparison chart [on record for PI 238796]. (EM Nauer, 2/4/1988)

There were formerly two selections of 'Moro' maintained at Riverside: this one and PI 539550. Both were apparently selections from seedling sources. PI 539554 was originally selected at the USDA Date and Citrus Station in Indio, California. At some point, it was established in the Nucellar Block at the UC Lindcove Research and Extension Center. Whether or not it was received as seed or as budwood is not clear, but the LREC trees were the source of the VI. Since this is the VI budline and there appears to be no difference between this and PI 539550, the latter was inactivated. Additional Information and pictures are availanble from the UC Riverside Citrus Variety Collection and the Citrus Clonal Protection Program. (RR Krueger, 7/3/2015)

Fruit compared with Eustis and Tavares, and old CI description. This may not be Lakeland, Fruit is not larger than Eustis; but trees are poor and this might account for relatively small fruit. (EM Nauer, 11/09/1987)

The trees planted in 1990 apparently expired some time before I started in this position in 1994. There are no alternative sources of this, so it is inactivated. This should have been done long ago. Note: The current accession of 'Lakeland' limequat maintained at USHRL apparently came from Florida DPI and its relationship to the older USHRL accession is not known to the writer. The CPB number referenced above is documented in the USHRL Accession Book and apparently refers to the original source of 'Lakeland' produced by Swingle. Thus this accession (PI 539807) was apparently derived directly from the original source. I guess this doesn't matter, though, since it is dead anyway. (RR Krueger, 06/15/2011)

There are currently four accessions of 'Foothill' lemon in various permutations: PI 539320, PI 539332, RCRC 4254, and RCRC 4255.

The history of this cultivar is somewhat confusing. 'Foothill' lemon is apparently a selection of 'Villafranca'. According to Hodgson (1967), p 566, 'Villafranca' has characteristics intermediate between 'Lisbon' and 'Eureka' lemons: "Fruit indistinguishable from Eureka, but seasonal distribution of crop more like Lisbon, mainly in winter. Tree similar to Lisbon, but more open and uprgith in growth habit, less thorny, and not as densely foliated." Hodgson (1967) further states "...certain clones with characterstics intermediate between Eureka and Lisbon have been propagated as selections of [Villafranca]. Almost certainly several of those currently of importance in California, notably the...Corona Foothill Eureka...are in reality Villafranca selections." The fact that 'Foothill' is intermediate between 'Eureka' and 'Lisbon' probably explains the fact that PI 539320 was referred to as a Eureka and PI 539332 was referred to as as Lisbon. It is probably better to refer to these selections simply as 'Foothill'.

'Foothill' was promising in a desert lemon trial, particulary with regard to yield (Kahn et al, 2015). Budwood for the trial was obtained from Young's Nursery, Thermal, CA. Due to the fact that 'Foothill' as VI 232 was not available from CCPP, budwood was obtained by CCPP from Lyn Citrus Seed, Arvin, CA (formerly part of Willits and Newcomb Citrus Nursery) in order to establish an active VI for the certification program. Due to perceived uncertainty as to the identity of the Lyn source with the Young's source, budwood was taken directly from the desert lemon trial for incorporation into the VI program.

'Foothill' is described thusly by Kahn et al (2015): "Corona Foothills [sic] fruit were onblong in shape with excellent exterior fruit quality, average juice content, high seed count, high peel thickness and average peel smoothness. Corona Foothills [sic] fruit had good size, were relatively early in maturity and had the best first harvest yield and next-to-best total yield and returns with excellent cumulative yiled." (R. R. Krueger, 2020-09-27)

Additional information and nice pictures from the UC Riverside Citrus Variety Collection.

This orange is described in [Hodgson, 1967] pp 453, as "Shamouti Masry (Khalily White, Egyptian Shamouti)". Variety Collect(ion) trees and fruit look like Shamouti. (EM Nauer, 03/1987)

Close examination of 10 fruit of each indicates that this and CRC 3746 {= PI 539617] are identical. (EM Nauer, 02/08/1988)

Pink flowers. (D. Cole, 1965-04-07)

This accession had seedling yellows which was removed by themotherapy (Thrrmo 1548-8). (E.M. Nauer, 1986)

Tavares limequat is discussed in The Citrus Industry, Vol I, pp 579-580. A more complete description is in the old (1943) Citrus Industry, p 668. (E.M. Nauer, ca 1987)

This is probably not Tavares; looks more like a lemonquat, or maybe even a small lemon or lemon hybrid without any quat at all. Fruit was compared with Eustis and the old C.I. description and does not fit at all. Fruit is larger than both Eustis and Lakeland, not oval, more spherical & somewhat flattened on both ends. (E.M. Nauer, 1987-11-09)

Flower buds are pink as described in both old & new C.I. editions. So maybe we really have Tavares, eh? Based on fruit, however, I still doubt it. (E.M. Nauer, 1988-03-08)

Molecular markers indicate not a kumquat hybrid. (M.L. Roose, 1995-02-21)

Since this was apparently not 'Tavares', a new accession, PI 654837, was acquired. (R.R. Krueger, 2020-08-30)

"C. sunki is considered to be native to China and is said to be a widely employed rootstock in China and Taiwan." (Hodgson, 1967, pp 525-526)

"Differs from the sweet mandarin orange in having smaller fruits with intensely acid pulp. The type of this variety is the sour mandarin called sand#252;n kat in Cantonese, propagated from seed in the Swatow region of Kwantung, where it is commonly used as a rootstock for grafting. G.W. Groff in 1918, in a manuscript report covering his work on citrus done in China under Swingle's supervision for the former Bureau of Plant Industry of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, described the sand#252;n kat as follows:

"'Fruits slightly depressed-globose, 2.9-3.3 cm long, 3.3-3.6 cm diam., with smooth, loose peel about 4 mm thick, capucine yellow (Ridgway, pl. 3) when ripe; oil glands small, round, far apart, fragrant; segments 9, easily separated; segment walls thin, tender, white; core 6-8 mm diam., soft; pulp deep chrom yellow (Ridgway, pl. 3), composed of small, short, pulp-vesicles, clinging together but irregularly arranged and easily broken; juice reddish yellow, very sour; seeds about 9, rounded at one end, pointed at the other, showing white parallel lines from base to tip; leaves lanceolate-elliptical, blades 6.8 X 2.5 cm, rather acutely cuneate at the base and narrowed to a blunt apex, with about 10 pairs of lateral veins; petioles nearly wingless.'

"This variety is widely grown about Swatow, China, where it is used as a rootstock upon which to graft the Ponkan or mi-tong-kan ("honey pot orange") and other famous varieties widely exported from Swatow.

"Probably some of the other sour mandarins called kat by the Cantonese are forms of this variety. Some of the so-called kat varieties with large fruits, which as they ripen may become sweet enough to eat, are probably hybrids between the variety austera and the sweet mandarin, C. reticulata, or the sweet orange, C. sinensis." (Swingle, 1943, p 415; Swingle and Reece, 1967, pp 381-382)

A small sour mandarin. (EM Nauer, 03/1987)

Sunki is widely used as a rootstock in China but has not had extensive evaluation in other areas. It is tolerant of tristeza and xyloporosis but susceptible to exocortis. Sunki is reported to be susceptible to Phytophthora but has survived well in some trials. It is also said to be tolerant of blight-like diseases in Brazil. Trees propagated on Sunki are reported to be highly salt tolerant, moderately cold hardy, and only slightly susceptible to chlorosis on calcareous soils. Trees on Sunki have been reported to be smaller than standard in China and Texas but large in Florida and California. Fruit yield and quality are at least equivalent to trees on sour orange or Cleopatra mandarin. Sunki is polyembryonic but has a higher proportion of zygotic seedlings than many other rootstocks. (Summarized from Wutscher, 1979, p 251; Castle, 1987, pp 373-374; Castle et al, 1993, p 25)

This is the "standard" accession of 'Sunki'. A recently received selection is RRUT 444. (RR Krueger, 07/09/2009)

Fruit examined - is a market type lemon - large fruit this season. (EM Nauer, 12/04/1987)

There are currently four accessions of 'Foothill' lemon in various permutations: PI 539320, PI 539332, RCRC 4254, and RCRC 4255.

The history of this cultivar is somewhat confusing. 'Foothill' lemon is apparently a selection of 'Villafranca'. According to Hodgson (1967) p 566, 'Villafranca' has characteristics intermediate between 'Lisbon' and 'Eureka' lemons: "Fruit indistinguishable from Eureka, but seasonal distribution of crop more like Lisbon, mainly in winter. Tree similar to Lisbon, but more open and uprgith in growth habit, less thorny, and not as densely foliated." Hodgson (1967) further states "...certain clones with characterstics intermediate between Eureka and Lisbon have been propagated as selections of [Villafranca]. Almost certainly several of those currently of importance in California, notably the...Corona Foothill Eureka...are in reality Villafranca selections." The fact that 'Foothill' is intermediate between 'Eureka' and 'Lisbon' probably explains the fact that PI 539320 was referred to as a Eureka and PI 539332 was referred to as as Lisbon. It is probably better to refer to these selections simply as 'Foothill'.

'Foothill' was promising in a desert lemon trial, particulary with regard to yield (Kahn et al, 2015). Budwood for the trial was obtained from Young's Nursery, Thermal, CA. Due to the fact that 'Foothill' as VI 232 was not available from CCPP, budwood was obtained by CCPP from Lyn Citrus Seed, Arvin, CA (formerly part of Willits and Newcomb Citrus Nursery) in order to establish an active VI for the certification program. Due to perceived uncertainty as to the identity of the Lyn source with the Young's source, budwood was taken directly from the desert lemon trial for incorporation into the VI program.

'Foothill' is described thusly by Kahn et al (2015): "Corona Foothills [sic] fruit were onblong in shape with excellent exterior fruit quality, average juice content, high seed count, high peel thickness and average peel smoothness. Corona Foothills [sic] fruit had good size, were relatively early in maturity and had the best first harvest yield and next-to-best total yield and returns with excellent cumulative yiled." (R. R. Krueger, 2020-09-27)

Additional information and nice pictures from the UC Riverside Citrus Variety Collection.

Citrus depressa is described in The Citrus Industry, Vol I, pp 524-525 [= Hodgson, 1967]. Basically it is a small fruited sour mandarin. (EM Nauer, ca 1987)

Small, very sour, mandarin. This accession appears identical to CRC 2448. (EM Nauer, 03/1987)

Appears identical to CRC 2448, C depressa. (EM Nauer, 10/1988)

Does appear identical to CRC 2448. CRC 2448 came from CPB in 1930, but CRC 2710 is from an unknown source at unknown time. If we are going to remove one, it should be this accession. (TJ Siebert, 01/2011)

Agreed. Inactivated. Comments: archival materials on file at NCGRCD and CVC state that the source is "unknown same as 2708." A comment on the card for RCRC 2708 states: "This tree was growing in the nursery after Caryl's death with #65128 on it. It was something he deemed worthy of propagating." This suggests that this accession was found also without proper identification in the nursery. Possibly it was even propagated from 2448. The active accession of C depressa is the above referenced RCRC 2448, maintained as PI 109754. (RR Krueger, 05/17/2011)

Budded on Orogold sweet. This tree was pulled by mistake in 1950. Fortunately seedlings of it were growing in the nursery. Propagations have been made from several of these seedlings. Will be set out in 1951. (WP Bitters, 04/17/1951)

A small fruited mandarin called C oleocarpa or timkat (in southern China) is described in [Hodgson, 1967, p 525]. This accession may or may not be the same cultivar. Probably not, in my opinion; but what do I know? Only what Dr Bitters tells me, and he won't tell me much. (EM Nauer, 1986)

Small mandarin, heavy crop, medium orange rind color, peels & sections well, too tart. (EM Nauer, 03/1987)

There are some gaps in the history of this accession. Apparently it originally came to the US as budwood in 1919 and remained in USDA control until at least 1935, when it was PI'ed. It arrived at Riverside in the mid-1930's (1938 being estimated from accessions with similar CRC numbers), but in what form is not specified (archival sources note "budwood?"). Apparently a tree was planted but pulled by accident in 1950. A budded tree was planted in 1951, apparently from a seedling budsource. From that point, the history is better documented. (RR Krueger, 2017-12-21)

See also information from the UC Riverside Citrus Variety Collection.

Thick rind, sour. (EM Nauer, 12/21/1987)

No fruit this season. (EM Nauer, 01/1989)

See note this date on CRC 2242 accession card. (EM Nauer, 11/13/1989)

PI 109680 was mistakenly assigned the redundant PI 539372 in 1990. Observations were recorded while it was identified as PI 539372, as were distributions prior to today. Additional information on PI 109680 is available in Reinking and Groff (1921), Groff (1927), and Martin and Cooper (1977). (RR Krueger, 2014-06-03)

Additional information on PI 109680 from the UC Riverside Citrus Variety Collection is available here.

Fair flavor, green flesh. (EM Nauer, 12/22/1987)

Large, pyriform, rough rind, medium yellow in color. Very thick rind; yellow flesh, crisp and moderately juicy with good, typical pummelo flavor. Two fruit only this year -- both seedless. (EM Nauer, 1/18/1989)

See note this date on RCRC 2242 accession card. (EM Nauer, 11/13/1989)

This accession was erroneously and redundantly given PI 539358 in 1990. PI 109684 is the correct and original PI. Observations were made while numbered asa PI 539358, as were distributions prior to today. Addiitonal information is available in Reinking and Groff (1921); Groff (1927); Hodgson (1967); and Martin and Cooper (1977). (RR Krueger, 2014/05/27)

Addiitonal information from the Citrus Variety Collection is available here.

Tart but edible - fits [Hodgson, 1967] description of Kao Panne fairly well. (EM Nauer, 12/21/1987)

See note on this date on CRC 2242 accession card. (EM Nauer, 12/13/1989)

PI 109685 was mistakenly assigned the redundant PI 539378 in 1990; observations were made while it was assigned PI 539378, and distributions prior to today. Additional information on Kao Pan is available in Reinking and Groff (1921), Groff (1927), and Martin and Cooper (1977). (RR Krueger, 2014-06-03)

Additional information on PI 109685 from the UC Riverside Citrus Variety Collection is available here.

No fruit this season. (EM Nauer, 1/18/1989)

Kao Panne (Kao Pan) accessions compared; these were [PI 109688], [PI 109684], [PI 109715], [PI 109680], and [PI 109685] (latest accession [PI 539400] not fruiting yet). All 5 are very similar but probably not identical with each other although 2 or 3 might be the same. [PI 109688] has the best flavor (to my taste) at this time; flesh is juicy and melting. (EM Nauer, 11/13/1989)

This accession was mistakenly assigned PI 539357 in 1990; observations were taken when it was identified as PI 539357, as were distributions prior to today. More information is available in Reinking and Groff (1921); Groff (1927); Hodgson (1967), pp 536 - 537; and Martin and Cooper (1977). (RR Krueger, 2014-05-23)

Additional information from the UC Riverside Citrus Variety Collection is available here.

One small plant on bittersweet cutting 12504 received from CPB fall 1929 from which the [tree @ CRC 8A-13-16,17] was budded. (archival documentation on file at CES)

Heavy crop, round fruit, medium peel. Seedy, white flesh, good tast, ricey. (WP Bitters, J Brusca, 3/10/1954)

Kao Pan (Kao Panne) is described in [Hodgson, 1967], pp 536-537. (EM Nauer, ca 1987)

This accession has dark pink flesh; is NOT Kao Panne. (EM Nauer, 5/1987)

Fair flavor, attractive interior. (EM Nauer, 12/22/1987)

This accession had a strange and tragic history. It was received by USDA as an un-named, white fleshed pummelo from Java. As of 1954, it was still a white-fleshed pummelo. At some point, someone decided it was 'Kao Pan' but I cannot find documentation of who or when. In 1954, from the documentation available, it appears that the original trees planted in 12S, Row 26 were the only one available for observation. The trees planted at 12D-35-1,2 in 1983 were propagated from the VI tree at LCFS. It therefore appears (but is not certain), that an incorrect, pink-fleshed pummelo was collected either for the VI in 1962 or from LCFS for the propagation of the 12A trees. When 12A-35-1 was removed in 2001, 2 trees were propagated from an incorrectly documented, protected tree (of which I also cannot find the original receipt documentation) that is actually PI 109715. Therefore, when 12A-35-2 was removed in 2011, the putative PI 109691 was lost. However, in truth it had been lost much earlier, whenever the pink-fleshed one was propagated. Several things are apparent: (1) the pink-fleshed pummelo was not consistent with either the original fruit or descriptions of 'Kao Pan' (see Reinking and Gross, 1921; Groff, 1927); (2) the CV name 'Kao Pan' may have been assigned erroneously either purposefully or not; (3) the pink-fleshed pummelo mistakenly associated with PI 109691 is probably another pink-fleshed pummelo that was or is in the collection; (4) there are at least 8 other 'Kao Pan' to deal with; (5) CPB 10127 is not associated with 'Kao Pan' in Groff (1927). In any event, PI 109691 is inactivated. Good riddance. Note: to further compound this commedia degli errori, PI 539365 was erroneously assigned to this genotype in the early 1990's. Observations were made when it was numbered PI 539356, as were distributions prior to today. (RR Krueger, 2014-05-15)

Additional information on PI 109691 from the Citrus Variety Collection is available here.

This accession had psorosis, removed by shoot tip grafting (STG 155-7). (EM Nauer, 1985)

Greenish flesh, sour now. (EM Nauer, 12/21/1987)

Fruit gone. (EM Nauer, 3/31/1989)

This is the best flavored of the older Kao Pan accessions (to my taste). See note for this date on CRC 2242 accession card. (EM Nauer, 11/13/1989)

This accession mistakenly had the redundant and incorrect PI 539363 assigned to it in 1990. Observations were recorded while it was labelled as PI 539363, as were distributions prior to today. Additional information is available in Reinking and Groff (1921); Groff (1927); and Martin and Cooper (1977). (RR Krueger, 2014-06-02)

Additional information on PI 109715 from the UC Riverside Citrus Variety Collection is available here.

This accession had exocorits which was removed by shoot tip grafting (STG 220-3). Rangpur is described in [Hodgson, 1967], pp 532. (EM Nauer, 1986)

See note this date on CRC 131 accession card. (EM Nauer, 1/14/1988)

This was erroneously assigned PI 539341 in the early 1990's. The observations were taken when it was designated PI 539341. (RR Krueger, 5/14/2014)

Additional information from the Citrus Clonal Protection Program (CCPP) is avilable here.

This accession had psorosis and seedling yellows, removed by thermotherapy (Thermo 1404-6). A description of Maltaise Ovale (Maltese Oval, Garey's or California Mediterranean Sweet is given in The Citrus Industry, Vol 1, pp 447 [=Hodgson, 1967]. (EM Nauer, 1985)

Still seems identical to CRC 274, Maltese Oval. Since HJ Webber suggested we change the name on this accession in 1934 (see above), and 54 years have gone by without action, I hereby take Dr Webber's usggestion and make said change lest it (his suggestion) becomes 100 years old without giving birth. (EM Nauer, 02/08/1988)

Probably identical to CRC 274. (EM Nauer, 10/1988)

Far be it from me to dissent from Dr Webber and Ed. Inactivated after all these years. The active accession of 'Maltese Oval' is PI 539597, the above mentioned CRC 274. (RR Krueger, 05/17/2011)

Information and fotos from the UC Riverside Citrus Variety Collection.

The history of this cultivar is somewhat confusing. 'Foothill' lemon is apparently a selection of 'Villafranca'. According to Hodgson (1967) p 566, 'Villafranca' has characteristics intermediate between 'Lisbon' and 'Eureka' lemons: "Fruit indistinguishable from Eureka, but seasonal distribution of crop more like Lisbon, mainly in winter. Tree similar to Lisbon, but more open and uprgith in growth habit, less thorny, and not as densely foliated." Hodgson (1967) further states "...certain clones with characterstics intermediate between Eureka and Lisbon have been propagated as selections of [Villafranca]. Almost certainly several of those currently of importance in California, notably the...Corona Foothill Eureka...are in reality Villafranca selections." The fact that 'Foothill' is intermediate between 'Eureka' and 'Lisbon' probably explains the fact that PI 539320 was referred to as a Eureka and PI 539332 was referred to as as Lisbon. It is probably better to refer to these selections simply as 'Foothill'.

'Foothill' was promising in a desert lemon trial, particulary with regard to yield (Kahn et al, 2015). Budwood for the trial was obtained from Young's Nursery, Thermal, CA. Due to the fact that 'Foothill' as VI 232 was not available from CCPP, budwood was obtained by CCPP from Lyn Citrus Seed, Arvin, CA (formerly part of Willits and Newcomb Citrus Nursery) in order to establish an active VI for the certification program. Due to perceived uncertainty as to the identity of the Lyn source with the Young's source, budwood was taken directly from the desert lemon trial for incorporation into the VI program.

'Foothill' is described thusly by Kahn et al (2015): "Corona Foothills [sic] fruit were onblong in shape with excellent exterior fruit quality, average juice content, high seed count, high peel thickness and average peel smoothness. Corona Foothills [sic] fruit had good size, were relatively early in maturity and had the best first harvest yield and next-to-best total yield and returns with excellent cumulative yiled." (R. R. Krueger, 2020-09-27)

The history of this cultivar is somewhat confusing. 'Foothill' lemon is apparently a selection of 'Villafranca'. According to Hodgson (1967) p 566, 'Villafranca' has characteristics intermediate between 'Lisbon' and 'Eureka' lemons: "Fruit indistinguishable from Eureka, but seasonal distribution of crop more like Lisbon, mainly in winter. Tree similar to Lisbon, but more open and uprgith in growth habit, less thorny, and not as densely foliated." Hodgson (1967) further states "...certain clones with characterstics intermediate between Eureka and Lisbon have been propagated as selections of [Villafranca]. Almost certainly several of those currently of importance in California, notably the...Corona Foothill Eureka...are in reality Villafranca selections." The fact that 'Foothill' is intermediate between 'Eureka' and 'Lisbon' probably explains the fact that PI 539320 was referred to as a Eureka and PI 539332 was referred to as as Lisbon. It is probably better to refer to these selections simply as 'Foothill'.

'Foothill' was promising in a desert lemon trial, particulary with regard to yield (Kahn et al, 2015). Budwood for the trial was obtained from Young's Nursery, Thermal, CA. Due to the fact that 'Foothill' as VI 232 was not available from CCPP, budwood was obtained by CCPP from Lyn Citrus Seed, Arvin, CA (formerly part of Willits and Newcomb Citrus Nursery) in order to establish an active VI for the certification program. Due to perceived uncertainty as to the identity of the Lyn source with the Young's source, budwood was taken directly from the desert lemon trial for incorporation into the VI program.

'Foothill' is described thusly by Kahn et al (2015): "Corona Foothills [sic] fruit were onblong in shape with excellent exterior fruit quality, average juice content, high seed count, high peel thickness and average peel smoothness. Corona Foothills [sic] fruit had good size, were relatively early in maturity and had the best first harvest yield and next-to-best total yield and returns with excellent cumulative yiled." (R. R. Krueger, 2020-09-27)

"Almost all Femminello selectiones are very susceptible to mal secco disease, which is widespread thoughout most Italian lemon orchards, but the selection Femminello St Teresa [sic] show some tolerance and has been planted on an inceased scale the past three decades. While Femminello is essentially an Italian-grown variety, there is a small area planted to the St Teresa selection in Tucuman Province in north-western Argentina where it is revered for its high rind oil yield. It is believed the variety in Turkey known as Italian is probably Femminello St Teresa." (Saunt, 2000, p 112)

RRUT 529 represents a clean source of 'Santa Teresa' and it is assumed it is the same as PI 227692. Additional information on 'Femminello Ovale' type lemons can be found in Hodgson (1967) and Saunt (2000). 'Santa Teresa' is said to be an excellent quality lemon that is nearly seedless. It is everbearing and low in thorniness. The fruit is described as "Few seeds to seedless. Elliptical to oblong in shape, with a slightly necked to rounded base and a short, blunt nipple. 2.50 to 2.75 inches in diameter equates to a 75 to 95 box count. Rind has a yellow color at full maturity, moderately smooth texture, medium thickness and high rind oil content. The greenish-yellow flesh is tender, juicy and highly acidic." The harvest season is September to August. The tree is "Round in shape with moderately vigorous upright and spreading growth habit, with branches that are nearly thornless. Medium height tree. Highly productive, setting flowers and fruit throughout the year. Well adapted to fruit forcing techniques." The advantages of this lemon are said to be that it is excellent quality, nearly seedless, and fruit size falls into two profitable categories. It is suitable for fresh market and processing, having high rind oil content. It is ever-blooming and ever-bearing, so can be harvested year round. Thornless branches facilitate picking. Fruit adheres strongly to tree, and stores and ships well. The year round harvest is possible only with specialized management. Information from Willits and Newcomb Nursery. (RR Krueger, 08/22/2013)

"The Choju kinkan or Changshou or Fukushu kumquat of Japan is a dwarf variety that is reported to be widely grown as a potted plant in CHina and also in Japan to some extent. According to Swingle [citation below], it is characterized by the broadly obovate form of the fruit, a markedly depressed apex, medium size, thin rind (for a kumquat), and a rather large number of segments (five or six, sometimes as many as eight). Seeds are few and polyembryonic. The plant is small and thornless". (Hodgson, 1967, p 583)

Obtained from Willits and Newcomb as a possible clean source of this cv which is already in the CVC (PI 539730/RCRC 3475). More information on PI 539730 is available from the Citrus Variety Collection. Tested clean but later also processed by CCPP. (RR Krueger, 06/27/2011)