l. I AFR-REY ,
lA 8: M COLLEGE, ‘_
cggipas

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR,
College Station, Texas

BULLETIN NO. 601 MAY 1941

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER
RIO GRANDE VALLEY

W’. H. FRIEND AND J. F. WOOD

Division of Horticulture

 

LIBRARY
Agricultural 81. Mechanical llullege nl mas

College Station, Texas

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS
T. O. WALTON, President

A135-541-9M-L180

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

There have been marked changes in the grapefruit variety situa-
tion in the Lower Rio Grande Valley during its relatively brief
history. The seedy types such as Duncan were soon supplanted
by Marsh Seedless. This has been superseded by the bud sports,
Thompson (Marsh Pink) and later the red-blushed types such as
Ruby.

Growers who planted orange trees during the early days of the
industry are more fortunate than those who planted grapefruit.
Valencia is still the standard late variety, and even seedy varieties
of the Pineapple and Parson Brown type are readily saleable.
Growers who started planting Hamlin orange trees at an early date
are in an enviable position as this excellent seedless variety is also
the most highly productive. Superior types of oranges which are
less perishable than some of the standard types are called to the
attention of the grower in this bulletin.

Tangelos are an interesting group of fruits that should be used
in every home orchard but have little commercial value.

Mandarin type oranges are not recommended for commercial
planting because of the highly perishable nature of this type of
fruit.

Limes and lemons may be grown by persons who are financially
able to equip their orchards with heaters.

There are many types of citrus fruits that may be grown as
ornamentals or for special purposes, but none of these are of com-
mercial importance.

CONTENTS

Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5

Grapefruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Orange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12

Tangelo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19

Mandarin type orange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23

Lemon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26

Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28

Kumquat . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Limequat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3O

Miscellaneous types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31

Technical description of orange varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33

Technical description of grapefruit varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35

Technical description of lemon varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE
VALLEY

W. H. Friend and J. F. WoodT

After many trial and error plantings of citrus fruits during the early
days of the Valley’s citrus industry, varieties are now fairly well standard-
ized. The grower demand for these varieties, previously recommended in
publications of the Valley Experiment Station (1), is so well crystallized
around a few types that it is now difficult to persuade commercial nursery-
men to propagate any other sorts. The purpose of this publication is to
call attention to some of the new but noteworthy varieties, and to com-
pare the merits of some of the older and better known varieties with
what should now be regarded as standard varieties.

The popular demand for trees is now centered on Ruby and Marsh
grapefruit; Hamlin (early) and Valencia (late) oranges; Clementine
tangerine; Meyer (cold resistant) and Eureka (everbearing) lemons; and
the Mexican lime. These varieties have won their popularity through
sheer merit, but it is logical to suppose that better varieties will be in-
troduced or created. Plant explorers and plant breeders are at work
adding to the list of citrus materials which can be evaluated only by fair
and impartial adaptability tests. Once a variety has been shown to be
superior it gradually replaces the older standard sorts.

The importance of variety in fruit growing is emphasized by the rela-
tive permanence of the trees. Thus differences between varieties in yield-
ing capacity, popularity of the fruit, hardiness to cold, and so on are
maintained from year to year and the distinction between profit and loss
may easily depend upon the choice of varieties, which is made before the
orchard is set.

Responsibility for trueness to type lies with the nurseryman who selects
the budwood. Since bud mutation is comparatively frequent in citrus
material, wood for propagation should be secured only from trees known
to be normal in every respect. Results of work on Marsh and Thompson
grapefruit at the station (4) leads to the conclusion that an improvement
in the normal yielding capacity of a variety cannot be obtained by means
of bud selection and therefore the grower is not justified in paying a
premium for trees on such a basis.

The yield data and the descriptivematerial presented on the following
pages furnish the basis for recommendations to Lower Valley growers.

METHODS

The variety test blocks were started in 1925 and some additions were
made to the collection each year since the study was started. Three trees

‘(Superintendent and Horticulturist respectively of Substation No. 15, Weslaco, Texas.

6 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

of each variety have been used in most instances, but in the case of some
0f the tangelo varieties, the descriptions and the adaptability rating have
been based on single, specimen, trees.

Wherever possible station results and experiences have been checked
with those of commercial growers of these same varieties. Statements
concerning varieties are, therefore, substantiated by the experience of
actual growers and handlers of citrus fruit.

The yield data represent the average annual production of three trees
on sour orange understock unless otherwise stated. It is realized that the
number of trees used is too small to give an absolutely reliable measure
of productive capacity, but the relative bearing ability of the trees of
the standard varieties seems to be in agreement with the experience
of commercial orchardists who give their citrus trees reasonably good
care. The yield figures represent the total production of fruit expressed
in pounds, with no consideration given to size or grade. Since most growers
sell their fruit on an orchard run basis, total yield now appears to be
the most important consideration. Acre yields can be computed by mul-
tiplying the yields shown by seventy, as the trees in these tests are spaced
so as to have seventy trees per acre.

The oldest trees used in these studies were obtained from commercial
sources, but those set after 1927 were grown in station nurseries. Authentic
budwood of most standard varieties was obtained from the U. S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture. Much interesting and some valuable material was
collected from local nurserymen and orchardists who have discovered bud
sports or trees which must have been inadvertently propagated from bud
sports. The large number of bud sports which have been discovered in
this region would seem to justify the conclusion that bud mutation is not
an uncommon occurrence in citrus in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.

The varieties were described during the height of their respective ripen-
ing seasons. Thirty or more individual fruits from trees of authentic
parentage, were used as a sample for description. Some of the varieties
were described in more than one season. The figures in the tabulated
descriptions are based on the means of the individual fruit measurements
for all seasons. The narrative descriptions are based on a single season.
In the case of some characteristics which were determined by observing
typical fruits, the numerical system of designating the adjectives that
apply was used.

GRAPEFRUIT

Trees of most commercial varieties of grapefruit are much more pro-
ductive than orange trees during the first ten years of bearing. This
accounts for the greater popularity of grapefruit as compared with oranges
during the developmental stage of the Valley’s citrus industry, as prices
received for grapefruit were then on a par with those received for oranges.

In the case of grapefruit, lack of information about varietal adaptability
and desirability has resulted in disaster to many of those growers who

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 7

pioneered in the citrus orcharding business. Much of this havoc was due
to the planting of seedy varieties of grapefruit. The plight of pioneer
grapefruit growers was made even more acute by the introduction of two
outstandingly good varieties after the industry was fairly well established.
Few growers realized that trees of Pink Marsh grapefruit were available
for commercial planting as early as 1924. However, Valley growers were
so well pleased at that time with the returns being received for the original
Marsh that they were loath to pay the extra cost of trees of this promising
new variety. The discovery of the Ruby grapefruit came at a time when
Valley growers had learned to appreciate the merits of the pink fleshed,
seedless grapefruit, and they were quick to recognize its merits. Plantings
of this excellent variety have been quite heavy since its introduction to
the public in 1933. It would seem that varieties of grapefruit in the
Valley have reached the acme of perfection, but there is still a demand for
grapefruit having certain qualities not possessed by any now grown.

For convenience, the varieties of grapefruit which have been grown
at the Experiment Station are divided into four groups: (1) those varieties
with numerous seeds; (2) varieties having few seeds and normal colored
pulp; (3) varieties having few seeds and pink colored pulp; and (4) the
non-commercial pummelo.

Seedy Types

Duncan: This variety has been grown in the Valley since the establish-
ment of the commercial citrus industry. Shortage of planting stock of the
more desirable seedless varieties and lack of knowledge on the part of
those who developed orchards account for the relatively large numbers of
old trees of this variety. Trees of Duncan grapefruit deteriorate relatively

Table 1. Variety test of grapefruit, yields in pounds per tree, 1934-1938

     

l Y ~ I ,*
CHI‘ l
Variety sct 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 f Avg

_ ______ _ _______l l__
Cecily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1932 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300.0 340.0 i 320.0
C0nner’s Prolific. . .. . . . .. 1927 231.3 756.3 660 0 1150.0 240.0 i 607.5
Duncan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1925 153.3 894.7 630 0 1333.3 380.0 l 678.2
Duncan** . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1925 283.0 575.0 751.0 1042.5 562.5 y 642.8
Duncan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1927 204.7 734.0 453 3 775.0 140.0 | 461.4
Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1925 30 .3 690.7 700 0 744.0 466.7 i 580.7
Inman’s Late. . . . . . . . . .. 1927 170.0 887.0 272 0 1375.0 160.0 572.8
Little River . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1929 314.0 121.7 365 7 665.0 472.7 387.8
I\Iarsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1923 307.7 718.7 916 7 916.7 948. 3 761.6
l\1arsh** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1925 702.0 534.0 962.7 1078.7 1010.7 857.6
Rlarsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1927 470.0 440.7 740 0 740.0 916.0 661.3
.\1cCart_v................ 1925 515.0 750.3 887 7 816.7 800.7’ 754.1
1\’1cCarty..... . . . . . . . . . . . 1927 361 609 640 750 480 568
Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1925 692.3 654.0 1055.0 840.3 968.3 l 842.0

Th0mps0n* . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1925 499.5 671.5 1080.0 1036.5 1320.0 921 5

Thompson Pink . . . . . . . .. 1929 165.6 276.4 656.0 704.6 562.0 i 472.9

Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1925 65.0 1006.0 245.0 200.0 475.0 l398.2

Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1927 160.0 109.0 495 0 325.0 475.0 312.8
Y

 

'*On Cleopatra Mandarin rootstock.
**()n rough 1cmo~n rootstock.

8 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

early and show symptoms of deficiency disease much sooner than those of
the Marsh type. They are alternate bearers (Table 1), and the fruit
produced during the off year is over-sized, thick skinned and unsalable
except as third grade, useful only as cannery stock.

Duncan grapefruit is the standard of quality for this type of citrus fruit
and few varieties equal it in flavor. The presence of the excessively large
numbers of seed makes this and other seedy varieties an uneconomical
fruit for the producer, canner or consumer (Table 9). Since highly acid,
seedy varieties retain their flavor while in storage much better than do
the Marsh type fruits, these Duncan type grapefruit can frequently be
stored for a few weeks and then sold at a good price, after the Marsh
grapefruit season is closed (3).

Technical description: Form oblate-rounded, 10.57 cm. x 9.40 cm.; wt.,
502 gms.; stem end, smooth; blossom end, smooth; rind, color yellow, sur-
face slightly rough, thickness 6.6 mm.; segments 11-14, average 12.8,
fairly irregular; septa texture, medium; flesh, color yellow; appearance of
flesh texture, medium; juice sacs, medium size; core type, closed, medium
size; number of seed 49-66, average 57.1; volume of juice, 209.4 cc.; per
cent juice by wt., 43.4; typical seed, 15 x 8 mm.; total solids, 11.85; acid, 1.66;
solids to acid ratio, 7.121. It matures from October 1 to November 15.

Walters: This seedy variety was sold to unsuspecting developers of
citrus property during the early days of the Valley’s citrus industry with
the claim that it was a highly productive, early maturing variety. The
trees of the Walters variety are similar to Duncan in most respects, and
are highly productive under Valley conditions. Like all seedy varieties,
the trees deteriorate at an early age, unless they are well fertilized each
season. The fruit is inferior to Duncan and is too bitter because of high
naringen content to be considered highly palatable. There appears to be
no justification for allowing trees of this variety to occupy valuable
orchard space.

Innman Late: Another of the seedy varieties that is quite similar to
Duncan in most respects. Like the Duncan variety it has no place in
Valley horticulture.

Conners Prolific: Pioneer citrus orchard developers planted some acre-
age to this variety in the belief that the trees were more prolific and that
the fruit became palatable relatively early in the fall. Neither has proved
to be true. As with other seedy varieties, there appears to be no justifica-
tion for the propagation of this variety.

McCarty (Indian River): The origin of this variety seems to be obscure,
but Hume (5) states that this is the famous Indian River variety. How-
ever, it is generally admitted that Duncan, or any of the good seedy varie-
ties, have exceptionally fine quality when produced on the marl soils of
the Indian River district. The good quality must be attributed to their
adaptability to this environment rather than to other varietal character-

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 9

istics. Trees of this variety at the Valley Station have produced excep-
tionally fine annual yields (Table 1). A peculiar characteristic of this
variety is the production of fruits singly instead of in clusters. McCarty
grapefruit produced on the calcareous soils of this region is fully the
equal of the famous Indian River grapefruit of commerce, but shippers
and canners discount the excellent flavor of any fruit that is excessively
seedy.

Technical description: Form oblate, 10.7 x 9.2 cm.; weight, 497.9 gms.;
stem end, smooth; blossom end, smooth; rind, color yellow, surface, slightly
rough, thickness 7.6 mm.; segments 12-14, average 12.7, regular; septa
texture, medium; flesh color, yellow; appearance of flesh texture, medium;
juice sacs, medium size; core type, closed, medium size; number of seed
47-61, average 56.2; volume of juice, 207.5 cc.; per cent juice by wt., 43.4;
typical seed 15 x 8 mm.; total solids, 11.05; acid, 1.74; solids to acid ratio,
6.35:1. The McCarty is an early, oblate, seedy type, yellow-fleshed fruit,
quite similar to the Duncan. Ripening season, October 1 to November 30.

Foster: This pink fleshed bud sport of the Walters grapefruit originated
in Florida. Under Valley conditions, the Foster is a distinct improvement
over its parent variety in quality. Trees of Foster grapefruit are alternate
bearers and deteriorate relatively early (Table 1). The fruit of Foster
grapefruit is most attractive in appearance because of the pink blush
which develops as the fruit ripens. Many persons consider Foster grape-
fruit to be the finest flavored fruit produced in the Lower Rio Grande
Valley. Because of its erratic bearing‘ habits and also because of the
seedy nature of the fruits, Foster grapefruit can no longer be considered
a variety worthy of propagation (Table 1).

Technical description: Form oblate, 11.2 x 9.7 cm.; weight, 569.0 gms.;
stem end, smooth; blossom end, smooth; rind, color yellow with a deep pink
blush, surface rough, thickness 7.2 mm.; segments 11-16, average 12.7,
fairly regular; septa texture, medium; flesh color, light pink; appearance
of flesh texture, medium; juice sacs, medium size; core type closed, medium
size; number of seed, 42-55, average 47.4; volume of juice, 254.1 cc.; per
cent juice by wt., 46.4; typical seed, 15 x 9 mm.; total solids, 10.10; acid,
1.40; solids to acid ratio, 7.21:1. Ripening season, November 1 to De-
cember 15.

Triumph: This variety is listed under grapefruit, but it is undoubtedly
an orange-grapefruit hybrid. It is interesting primarily because of the
distinctive quality of the juice, which has a decided pummelo flavor with
very low acidity (7). Trees of this variety resemble orange trees in their
habit of growth and regularly produce large crops of small (size 150)
round grapefruit that have coarse pummelo-like flesh and many seeds
(Table 9). The fruit is relished by some persons because of its distinctive
flavor and low acidity. The variety has no commercial possibilities.

l0 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Seedless Types

Marsh (Marsh Seedless): This was the most extensively planted "variety
of grapefruit in the Valley until the introduction of the Thompson Pink
and Ruby (red blush) varieties. The adaptability of this variety to Valley
conditions accounts for the extensive planting and present over-production
of fruit of this type (6). The tree is quite vigorous and produces high
yields of fruit each season. The fruit matures earlier than that from any
other grapefruit producing region of the United States (7, 8). When
grown on well drained, sandy loam soil, the trees have a relatively long
life expectancy. The fruit, when produced on trees in properly managed
orchards, has an exceptionally fine texture and is very attractive in ap-
pearance. The flesh is tender and mild in flavor. The low acidity of Marsh
grapefruit when produced under average Valley conditions has gained
recognition for Texas grapefruit in many markets in the United States
as fruit of superior dessert quality (Table 9).

Marsh is still the leading commercial variety because of the large acreage
planted to trees of this type. The entire canning industry and the main
portion of the citrus fruit enterprise is based on this seedless variety.
Because of this large acreage there seems to be no advantage in further
expanding the plantings of this variety.

Technical description: Form oblate-rounded, 9.08 cm. x 8.18 cm.; wt.,
295.2 gms.; stem end smooth, blossom end smooth; rind, color yellow, sur-
face very slightly rough, thickness 6.5 mm.; segments 11-16, average 18,
irregular; septa texture, medium; flesh color, yellow; appearance of flesh
texture, fine to medium; juice sacs, small to medium; core type fairlyidense,
medium size; number of seed 1-8, average 3.5; volume of juice, 126.9 cc.;
per cent juice by wt., 44.7; typical seed 14 x 9 mm.; total solids, 11.11;
acid, 1.50; solids to acid ratio, 7.4:1. Ripening season, October 15 to
December 1.

Little River Seedless (Davis Seedless): This seedless variety is said to
have originated as a bud sport of Duncan. The fruit possesses some of the
good qualities of the parent Duncan variety but does not possess the high
flavor characteristic of Duncan. Trees of Little River Seedless grapefruit
are similar to Duncan trees in their general appearance, but bear annually
in contrast to the parent variety (Table 1). The fruit is relatively seed-
less and is slightly more acid than that of Marsh which it closely resembles
in many respects. Because of its somewhat higher acidity, this could be
used as a superior type for marketing late in the season or for holding
in storage (Table 9).

Technical description: Form oblate, 9.96 cm. x 8.70 cm.; wt., 410.8 gms.;
stem end smooth, blossom end smooth; rind, color yellow, surface slightly
rough, thickness 6.8 mm.; segments 11-16, average 12.9; irregular; septa
texture, medium; flesh color, yellow; appearance of flesh texture, medium;
juice sacs, medium size; core type dense, medium size; number of seed
1-10, average 5.3; volume of juice, 191.0 cc.; per cent juice by wt., 48.4;

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 11

typical seed 15 x 9 mm.; total solids, 10.15; acid, 1.68; solids to acid ratio,
6.0:1. Ripening season, October 15 to December 1.

Cecily Seedless: This seedless variety is said to have originated on the
Cecil Rhodes properties in South Africa. Trees of this variety are quite sim-
ilar to those of the Marsh variety in appearance and productive capacity
(Table 1). The fruit is so similar to Marsh in all characteristics that for all
practical purposes it might be considered identical.

Garner Seedless: This seedless variety originated near Laredo, Texas,
and was named for John M. Garner. The tree appears to be quite vigorous
and productive. The fruit might be considered by some to be superior to
the milder flavored Marsh as Garner grapefruit has a bit of the rugged
characteristics of the highly flavored Duncan variety.

Pink Fleshed Seedless Varieties

Thompson Pink (Pink Marsh): This excellent variety originated as a
bud sport on a Marsh grapefruit tree in a Florida citrus grove. The tree
of the Thompson variety is fully as well adapted and productive as that
of the parent (Table 1). Contrary to common belief, the fruit is not
inherently small in size, as this character is governed by the amount of
fruit produced and by the care and fertilizer the tree receives. The fruit
is relatively seedless and the flesh has an attractive pink color, but is
similar in all other respects to the parent variety (Table 9). The increased
consumer demand for pink fleshed, seedless grapefruit has given impetus
to the commercial production of this variety of grapefruit. Thompson
Pink is second only in value to its own bud sport, Ruby, a red blushed
variety.

Technical description: Form oblate, 10.3 cm. x 8.79 cm.; wt., 438.2 gms.;
stem end smooth, blossom end smooth; rind, color yellow, surface slightly
rough, thickness 7.3 mm.; segments 11-15, average 13.3; irregular; septa,
texture medium; flesh color, light pink; appearance of flesh texture, fine
to medium; core type slightly open, medium size; number of seed 2-9,
average 5.1; volume of juice, 189.5 cc.; per cent juice by Wt., 45.0; typical
seed 14 x 10 mm.; total solids, 10.45; acid, 1.56; solids to acid ratio, 6.7:1.
The color tends to fade toward the end of the season, leaving an unsightly,
blotched appearance. Ripening season, October 15 to December 1.

Ruby (Redblush): This attractive variety originated in the Lower Rio
Grande Valley as a bud sport of the Thompson Pink variety. Many of these
red fleshed, blushing sports have been discovered but the Ruby, the first
to be described, was discovered by Mr. E. A. Henninger of McAllen, Texas
(2). Trees of the Ruby grapefruit appear to be fully the equal of their
Marsh Seedless grandparent in their adaptability and productive capacity.
The young trees are especially precocious and it is not uncommon for
three year old trees to yield returns greater than their cost of maintenance.

12 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Fruit of the Ruby grapefruit is unexcelled. The smooth textured, oblate
fruits have a most attractive undertone of red that develops into a distinct
blush as the fruit reaches maturity. The flesh is spectrum red in color and
of somewhat superior quality to Marsh Seedless grapefruit because it con-
tains slightly more acid (Table 9). The attractive color and flavor coupled
with the relative seedlessness of this variety would seemto make it the
outstanding citrus development since the establishment of the grapefruit
industry in the United States.

Technical description: Form oblate, 9.5 x 7.9 cm.; weight, 351.0 gms.;
stem end, smooth; blossom end, smooth; rind, color yellow with a deep red
blush, surface slightly rough, thickness 6.1 mm.; segments 11-14, average
12.8, fairly regular; septa texture, medium; flesh color, deep pink to light
red; appearance of flesh texture, medium; juice sacs, medium size; core
type open, medium size; number of seed 2-6, average 4.3; volume of juice,
171.4 cc.; per cent juice by wt., 50.78; typical seed, 14 x 9 mm.; total solids,
10.95; acid, 1.34; solids to acid ratio, 8.17:1. Ripening season, October 1
to November 30.

Pummelo Varieties

The pummelos (shaddocks) are an interesting group of citrus fruits
and are generally considered to be the progenitors of the grapefruit, as
we know it today. The Chinese pummelos, as typified by the Thong Dee
variety, are characterized by the large, thick-skinned coarse fruits which
have equally coarse flesh. The pulp of the pummelo has a distinctive odor
and flavor that is not relished by many persons. The red fleshed pummelos
are prized by some persons as a salad fruit. The large, thickwalled juice
sacs, which are easily separated from the membranes, make a most
attractive salad base. All varieties of pummelos are excessively seedy
and are characterized by the strong musky flavor and aroma of the pulp.

ORANGES

It is now known that orange trees are even better adapted to conditions
in the Lower Rio Grande Valley than are grapefruit trees. The young trees
do not come into heavy bearing quite as early as do young trees of grape-
fruit, but old trees bear regularly and heavily and the fruit is at present
more valuable commercially than that of standard varieties of grapefruit.
From the commercial standpoint, orange varieties may be divided into
four groups (1) early seedless varieties, (2) early seedy varieties, (3)
late oranges, and (4) navel oranges.

Early Seedless Varieties

Hamlin (Norris Seedless): This early maturing seedless variety was
introduced into the Valley from Florida in 1924. The oldest specimens are
tremendous trees with enormous bearing capacity. It is not uncommon
for trees of this variety to produce more than a thousand pounds of

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 13

oranges annually. Hamlin trees are very precocious and produce heavy
crops of fruit each season. N0 known variety will outyield this one on
good Valley soil (Table 2).

The fruit is of fine texture and has a skin that is as smooth as a kid
glove. The interior quality is excellent, there are comparatively few seeds,
and the pulp has a mild flavor and is almost devoid of acid (Table 7). When
the trees are grown on good soil and properly cared for, the fruit is not
subject to splitting or drying within its normal ripening season. The high

" productive capacity of the trees and the ready market for the fruit makes

 

this variety a favorite with Valley growers. The tendency of the trees
to produce small size fruit, its rather poor shipping and keeping quality
and its tendency to lose flavor after December are rather serious faults
of the variety.

Table 2. Variety test of round oranges, yields in pounds per tree, 1934-1938

Year J
Variety set 193/1 1935 1936 1937 1938 I Avg
Hamlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1925 288.3 381.3 727 3 560 0 885 0 Ii 568.4

Hamlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1927 196.3 264.7 586 3 517.0  0 443 9

Hamlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1929 152.0 106.5 420 0 361 0 489 5 l 305 8

Hzmissasa . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1927 145.7 175.3 385 0 368 0 404 7 295 7

Joppa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1927 72.5 178.5 498 5 251 5 678.5 335 9
Lou (iim Gong. . .. . . . . .. 1925 166.7 351.3 526.3 240 4 431.1 343 2
Lou Gim Gong.......... 1927 54.0 113.0 316 7 104 0 198.7 157 3
Malta Blood . . . . . . . . . . .. 1927 115.0 141.0 43 0 340 0 238 0 175 4

Parson Brown . . . . . . . . . .. 1925 261.3 230.7 577.3 I555 7 659 7 416.9

Parson Brown . . . . . . . . . .. 1925 255.0 272.3 630 0 432 0 818 5 481 5

Parson Brown . . . . . . . . . .. 1927 142.0 167.7 300 0 329.7 316 7 251 2

Pineapple . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1925 148.0 59.0 356 5 267.5 484 0 263.0

Pineapple . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1925 242.0 190.0 536 7 272.7 712 0 390.7

Pineapple . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1927 128.7 91.7 352 7 212.0 497 0 256.4
Round (). No. 37783. . . .. 1925 120.0 198.0 359 0 360.0 588 0 325.0
Ruby Blocd . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1925 161.7 189.0 442 7 273.3 731 7 359.7

Ruby Blood . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1927 135.0 197.0 200 0 510 O 524 0 322.0

Valencia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1925 153.3 230.3 539 3 197.3 384 0 300 8

Valencia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1925 183.3 322.3 590 0 321.3 468.7 377.1

Valencia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1927 50.0 147.0 329.7 340 0 303.1 234.0

Technical description: Form rounded, 6.98 cm. x 6.68 cm.; wt., 174.4
gms.; stem end smooth, blossom end smooth; rind, color light orange,
surface fairly smooth, thickness 3.4 mm.; segments 9-13, average 10.8,
regular; septa texture, medium; flesh color, pale orange; appearance of
flesh texture, medium; juice sacs, medium size; core type dense to closed,
size medium; number of seed 2-11, average 5.4; volume of juice, 65.9 cc.;
per cent juice by wt., 44.5; typical seed, 13 x 8 mm.; total solids, 11.51;
acid, .81; solids to acid ratio, 14.2:1. Ripening season, October 15.

Joppa (Joppa Seedless): This is the only variety which offers serious
competition to Hamlin. It originated as a seedling of the famous Chamouti
orange which is the leading orange variety on European markets. The
trees are characterized by an upright habit of growth somewhat similar
to that of the Navel variety. They are not nearly so precocious as those

14 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

of the Hamlin variety, nor do they seem to have its exceptionally high pro-
ductive capacity (Table 2). They are more like trees of the Valencia variety
in their fruiting habits.

Fruit of the Joppa orange is similar to that of the Hamlin orange both
in size and in external appearance. Because of its heavier rind it has
superior shipping and keeping quality compared to Hamlin fruit. Joppa
fruits are relatively seedless, the pulp has a fine texture, and a pleasing
subacid flavor (Table 7). Because fruit of the Joppa variety holds its
fine flavor until late in the season and because of the superior shipping
and keeping quality of the fruit, it would seem worthy of propagation on
a commercial scale.

Technical description: Form rounded, 7.48 cm. x 7.25 cm.; wt., 215.5
gms.; stem end, smooth; blossom end, smooth; rind, color yellow, surface,
rough, thickness, 3.0 mm.; segments, 9-12, average, 10.23, fairly irregular;
septa texture, tough; flesh color, yellow-orange; appearance of flesh tex-
ture, medium; juice sacs, medium; core type, dense, medium size; number
of seed, 5-16, average, 9.36; volume of juice, 113.13 cc.; per cent juice by
wt., 54.86; typical seed, 12 x 7 mm.; total solids, 11.31; acid, .92; solids
to acid ratio, 12.29:1. Ripening season October 15.

Texas Seedless: This is an early maturing bud sport of the Lou Gim
Gong variety that originated in the Valley. This variety is in a somewhat
unstable state as a few limbs on some of the trees produce fruit having
perfect navel markings. Trees are somewhat more vigorous than those
of the parent variety and produce good yields of comparatively large sized
fruit. The fruit is similar to that of Lou Gim Gong in appearance, but it
colors and ripens somewhat earlier. It seems to be entirely seedless and
to have excellent interior quality. Because of the fine qualities of the
fruit, and also because it ripens between the Hamlin and Valencia seasons,
this variety may prove to be worthy of propagation on a commercial scale.

Rico Oranges: This group of varieties represent outstanding seedlings
selected by Mr. A. D. Shamel during an expedition through the island of
Porto Rico in 1932. Some of these appear to have exceptional vigor, the
habit of growth being similar to that of navel orange trees. Fruit of the
best selection of Rico oranges is oval in shape, practically seedless, and
quite similar to the J oppa orange in many respects. Information pertaining
to these varieties is too limited to justify any recommendation, but it now
seems that they may be worthy of consideration.

Early Seedy Types

Pineapple: The Pineapple variety is probably the best known and most
widely planted of the early maturing varieties that have an objectionable
number of seeds. The trees are highly productive, and bear heavy crops
every year (Table 2). The fruit is in no way superior to that of the Hamlin
variety, and its objectionable seediness causes it to sell at a lower price.
There appears to be no justification for continuing this variety commercially.

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 15

Technical description: Form rounded, 7.83 cm. x 7.32 cm.; wt., 241.56
gms.; stem end, smooth; blossom end, smooth; rind, color yellow, surface,
rough, thickness, 3.66 mm.; segments, 10-13, average, 11.06, fairly irregular;
septa texture, medium; flesh color, yellow-orange; appearance of flesh tex-
ture, medium; juice sacs, medium; core type, closed, medium size; number
of seed, 8-19, average, 12.96; volume of juice, 120.63 cc.; per cent juice
by wt., 51.93; typical seed, 16 x 13 mm., 6 x 7 mm.; total solids, 9.99; acid
.63; solids to acid ratio, 14.27:1. Ripening season, October 15 to November 1.

Parson Brown: This is an early maturing variety that is similar to
Pineapple in many respects and is sold through commercial channels as
Pineapple orange. The trees have high productive capacity and bear every
year (Table 2). The fruit matures at the same season as Hamlin, and
somewhat earlier than Pineapple. Because of its objectionable seediness,
it has lost favor with Valley growers.

Technical description: Form rounded to slightly oblate, 6.75 cm. x 6.41
cm.; wt., 122.3 gms.; stem end, smooth, blossom end smooth; rind, color
deep orange, surface smooth, thickness 2.7 mm.; segments 9-13, average
10.9; fairly irregular; septa texture, medium; flesh color, light orange;
appearance of flesh texture, medium; juice sacs, medium size; core type
closed, medium size; number of seed 10-28, average 18.7; volume of juice,
61.6 cc.; per cent juice by wt., 43.9; typical seed 13 x 9 mm.; 19 x 7 mm.;
total solids, 12.00; acid, .77; solids to acid ratio, 15.5:1. Ripening season,
October 15.

Homossasa: This variety, which is a favorite with some Florida growers,
has few qualities to recommend it to Valley orchardists. The trees are
vigorous but not so productive as those of the Hamlin variety (Table 2).
Fruit of the Homossasa is more like that of the J oppa orange in appearance
but is objectionably seedy. There appears to be no good reason for propa-
gating this variety in the Valley.

Technical description: Form rounded, 8.37 cm. x 8.15 cm.; wt., 302.9
gms.; stem end, smooth; blossom end, smooth; rind, color yellow, surface
rough, thickness, 4.36 mm.; segments, 9-13, average, 10.56, fairly irregular;
septa texture, medium; flesh color, yellow-orange; appearance of flesh tex-
ture, medium; juice sacs, medium; core type, closed, medium size; number
of seed, 2-27, average, 15.5; volume of juice, 142.3 cc.; per cent of juice by wt.,
48.80; typical seed, 14 x 8 mm.; total solids, 9.86; acid, .61; solids to acid
ratio, 16.16:1. Ripening season, December 1.

Mediterranean Sweet: This variety was introduced from Florida with
the claim that it had superior quality. The trees are quite similar to those
of the Pineapple variety both in appearance and performance. The fruit
is just another seedy orange with no distinctive characteristics to recom-
mend it.

Blood Oranges

Ruby (Ruby Blood): This variety is the most desirable in this group.
The trees are vigorous and regularly produce heavy yields of fruit (Table

16 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

2). The fruit is similar to that of the Pineapple variety in external appear-
ance and has fewer seed and a more sprightly flavor. There are no blood
markings in the pulp of this orange when grown under Valley conditions, as
is the case with the Malta Blood orange. The Ruby Blood is the only one of
this group that has any possibilities as a commercial variety, and it must
be considered inferior to varieties such as Hamlin and J oppa for commercial
planting.

Technical description: Form rounded to slightly oblate, 7.74 cm. x 7.14
cm., wt. 217.44 gms.; stem end very slight basined, blossom end smooth;
rind, color light orange, surface rough, fairly tough; thickness, 4.01 cm.;
segments 11-12, irregular; septa texture, medium; juice sacs, medium length
and narrow; appearance of flesh texture, medium; core type closed, size
small, texture coarse; number of seed 13-14, mean wt. .28 gms., color cross~
section, white. Volume of juice, 97.80 cc.; per cent juice by wt., 45.75. Total
solids, 10.36; acids, 1.75; sugar to acid ratio, 13.8521. Although it is a blood
orange, the red pigmentation is mottled or entirely lacking when grown in
the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Ripening season, November 15 to December 1.

Malta Blood: This is the only one of the blood oranges that shows any
of the usual, distinctive blood markings in the pulp. The trees are vigorous
but do not produce as regularly nor as heavily as do those of the Ruby
Blood (Table 2). The oblong fruits are at their best during January.
Because of their intense sweetness, they appeal to many consumers.

St. Michael Blood: This thin skinned variety is interesting because it
is one of the really worthless varieties that has been sold to unsuspecting
orchardists. The trees are not as vigorous as those of the Hamlin and they
shed fruit excessively when conditions are even moderately unfavorable.
The fruit is small, very thin skinned and has few qualities to recommend
it. A large portion of the crop is lost each season from splitting.

Late Varieties

Late varieties of oranges might be classified as those types that, because
of their relatively high acidity, must be withheld from the market until
after February first.

Valencia: This is undoubtedly the most widely planted variety of orange
in the world as most of the new plantings in South America, South Africa
and the Eastern Mediterranean region have been set to this variety. It
is the most profitable variety of orange grown in California and large
acreages of young trees have been planted in both Florida and Texas. The
cold hazard is the principal factor limiting the popularity of this variety
in the Valley.

The trees are fairly vigorous but are not so precocious nor so productive
as those of the Hamlin variety (Table 2). The fruits average somewhat
larger in size than those of the Hamlin orange but have a thicker, rougher
rind that imparts better shipping and keeping quality. They contain rela-

 

v-wmr-vq-v- 1j,wm'r'*rv" - - l

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 17

tively few seeds, and the pulp is firm and has a sprightly acid, true orange
flavor. This is the standard late variety and much of the new acreage will
be planted to Valencia oranges.

Technical description: Form, rounded 7.7 x 7.3 cm.; weight, 232.9 gms.;
stem end, smooth; blossom end, smooth; rind color, light orange, surface
rough, thickness 4.5 mm.; segments 10-13, average 11.6, slightly irregular;
septa texture, medium; flesh color, orange; appearance of flesh texture,
medium; juice sacs, medium size; core type dense, medium size; number
of seed 0-12, average 4.6; volume of juice, 114.8 cc.; per cent juice by wt.,
51.3; typical seed, 17 x 7 mm.; total solids, 11.35; acid, .92; solids to acid
ratio, 12.3:1. Ripening season, January 15 to February 1.

Lou Gim Gong: This late variety originated as a seedling of the
Valencia orange and is thought by some to be identical to the parent tree.
There is some evidence that fruit of this variety colors and ripens some-
what earlier than that of the Valencia. The trees are as vigorous and
productive as comparable Valencia trees (Table 2), and some growers
claim they produce larger fruits. A bud sport of the Lou Gim Gong, the
Texas Seedless, definitely does produce fruits that mature earlier and are
larger in size than those of the Valencia variety. It is the opinion of some
growers that the fruits of Lou Gim Gong are less subject to splitting than
those of the Valencia variety.

Pervis: This is a strain of Valencia orange that is said to be much more
resistant to cold than the parent type. The trees and fruit appear to be
identical with Valencia, and there seems to be no good reason to consider
this as a distinct variety.

Navel Oranges

This group of large fruited varieties is characterized by the vigorous
upright growth habits of the trees and their shy, alternate bearing habits.
The fruit of most strains is large, coarse, and of questionable quality.

Washington Navel: This variety which attains such perfection in Cali-
fornia is not adapted to Valley conditions. The trees are erratic producers
and the fruit lacks uniformity in size and quality. During certain seasons
the fruit shows poor shipping quality. The trees develop rapidly and are
quite vigorous but bear normal crops only occasionally (Table 3). The
fruit is large (Table 7) and rather irregular in shape. The quality of
Washington Navel oranges is dependent on the weather during the ripen-
ing season. Abundant rainfall causes the fruit to be watery and insipid,
while dry windy weather causes the fruit to be ricey in texture and lacking
in juice.

Technical description: Form rounded, 8.45 cm. x 8.58 cm.; wt., 316.7
gms.; stemend smooth, navel small, even; rind, color light orange, surface
rough, thickness 4.4 mm.; segments 9-14, average 10.6, fairly irregular;
septa texture, medium; flesh color, pale orange; appearance of flesh tex-

18 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

ture, medium; juice sacs, medium size; core type dense, size medium; nu1n-
ber of seed 0-10, average 1.9; volume of juice, 131.6 cc.; per cent juice by
wt., 42.2; typical seed 13 x 10 mm.; total solids, 13.10; acid, .58; solids to
acid ratio, 22.5:1. Ripening season, October 15 to November 1.

Thompson Navel: This variety is sometimes known as the “wooden”
orange because of its tendency toward internal drying. The trees are
similar to those of the Washington Navel, and are fully as erratic in their
bearing habits. The fruits are much smoother in appearance than those of
the Washington Navel but the internal quality is even more variable than
that of the parent variety.

Buckeye Navel: This bud sport of the Washington Navel variety appears
to be distinctly superior to the original type under Valley conditions both
as to the uniformity of the fruit and interior quality.

Sunny Mountain Navel: This strain which appears to be superior under
California conditions has proven to be disappointing here in the Valley.
The fruits appear to be typical of the Washington Navel variety.

Surprise Navel: This strain of the Washington Navel orange originated
in Florida and is said to have some points in its favor. It has never assumed
commercial importance in that state and cannot be considered worthy of
propagation in this region. The surprise apparently refers to the shock
one receives when he cuts a fruit of this variety anticipating something good.

Navelencia: This outcast of the Navel family is also referred to as the
wooden orange because of its poor interior quality.

Rio Grande Navel: This name is applied to one of a number of Brazilian
Navel selections which were made by A. D. Shamel in the original home of
the Washington Navel variety. Several of these strains are distinctly su-
perior to other varieties of Navel oranges in that they regularly produce
good crops of fairly uniform fruit that is not subject to internal drying.
The best selection (P. I. 37769) has been named Rio Grande. Trees of
this strain attain large size and are quite vigorous. When mature, tree

Table 3. Variety test of naval oranges, yields in pounds per tree, 1934-1938

_ Year
Variety set 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 Avg.

Buckeye Navel . . . . . . . . .. 1927 49.5 79 5 134.0 203 0 111.5 115.5
Navel P. I. 37783.. .. . . . 1925 105 359 470 320 53h 358.0
Navel P I. 37758 . . . . . . . 1925 32.0 341. 337.0 454.5 426 3 318.2
Navel O. P. I. 37766. . .. 1925 122 358 435 510 f 8 402.6
Navel O. P. I. 37769.... 1925 105.3 444.3 424.3 503.0 572.7 409.9
Secdless Navel O.

P. I. 37788 . . . . . . . . .. 1925 72.0 385.0 628.0 552.5 770.0 481.5
Spiny Navel............. 1927 125.0 254.7 171.1 333.0 162.0 209.2
Texas Navel P. I. 37783. 1925 475 518 500 391 618 500.4
Texas Navel P. I. 37758. 1925 480.0 511.0 574.0 695.0 595.0 571.0
Washington Navel . . . . . . . 1925 63.0 123.0 325.0 280.0 400.0 238 .2
Washington Navel . . . . . . . 1927 79.7 204.0 232.7 189.0 291.7 199 .4

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 19

yields range well above 500 pounds of fruit per tree annually. Fruit of the
Rio Grande strain is superior in uniformity and conformation to either
that of Washington Navel or Texas Navel, but the interior quality of the
flesh is not nearly the equal of the latter variety.

Technical description: Form rounded, 7.7 cm. x 7.9 cm.; wt., 239.5 gms.;
stem end, smooth; navel medium size, even; rind color, light orange, sur-
face rough, thickness 3.9 mm.; segments 8-12, average 10.8, fairly irregular;
septa texture, medium; flesh color, pale orange; appearance of flesh tex-
ture, medium; juice sacs, medium size; core type closed, medium size;
number of seed 1-7, average 2.9; volume of juice 93.3 cc.; per cent juice by
wt., 40.5; typical seed, 13 x 9 mm.; total solids, 7.90; acid .69; solids to
acid ratio, 11.14:1. Ripening season, October 15 to November 1.

Texas Navel: This strain was introduced with a group of Brazilian
Navel oranges. The exceptional vigor of the trees, their tendency to pro-
duce regularly good crops of medium sized fruits (Table 3), and the
sprightly flavor of the fruit (Table 8) first attracted attention to trees
of this parentage. The trees are extremely vigorous, being much larger
than any trees in the station collection. Average yields range considerably
higher than those of the standard Washington Navel variety.

The fruit is rather irregular and somewhat coarse in appearance, but
the interior quality is definitely superior to that of any other Navel oranges
in the station collection. For growers who desire to increase plantings of
Navel oranges, this strain has possibilities especially for border planting
to afford wind protection to less vigorous varieties.

Technical description: Form rounded, 7.96 cm. x 7.27 cm.; wt., 244.6
g1ns.; stem end, smooth, navel medium size, very slightly protruding; rind,
color light orange, surface rough, thickness 3.6 mm.; segments 9-12, average
10.7, fairly irregular; septa texture, medium; flesh color, pale orange;
appearance of flesh texture, medium; juice sacs, medium size; core type
closed, medium size; number of seed 1-7, average 2.7; volume of juice,
90.2 cc.; per cent juice by wt., 44.5; typical seed, 8 x 11 x 15 mm.;
total solids, 11.25; acid, .88; solids to acid ratio, 12.7:1. Ripening season,
October 15 to November 1.

TANGELOS

These hybrid fruits, which were developed by workers of the U. S. De-
partment of Agriculture by crossing grapefruit and tangerine, are useful

v for home planting but few commercial plantings have been made. Because

of their perishable nature they are much more diflicult to merchandise
than are round oranges and grapefruit. Most of these fruits more closely
resemble the Mandarin orange parent than they do their pomelo parent.

Early Varieties

Thornton: This is the best known of the worthy tangelo varieties of
the U. S. D. A. The trees are similar to those of the standard grapefruit

20 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

varieties but average smaller in size. Mature trees bear crops ranging
around 500 pounds per tree annually. The fruit resembles a small, warty
grapefruit in appearance both inside and out. The pulp is light straw
color and has the melting consistency of its tangerine parent. The fruit
is a perfect blending of the best flavor to be found in the tangerine
and the grapefruit, with the grapefruit flavor predominating (Table 4).
This attractive fruit is comparable to the Temple orange, but is doomed
to oblivion because of seemingly insurmountable marketing difficulties.

Mineola: This beautiful fruit represents the best of this type. The
trees are similar to those of Thornton in size, type and productive capacity.
The fruit is about the size of a large Temple orange, has the high color and
general shape of the Dancy tangerine, and deep orange-red flesh of melting
consistency. The flavor represents a perfect blending of the juice of the
King Mandarin With the McCarty grapefruit (Table 4). It is unfortunate
that the public must be deprived of the pleasure of enjoying this superb
fruit. Until marketing difficulties can be overcome, plantings of this
variety should be limited to door yard orchards.

Altoona: The trees and fruit of this variety are somewhat similar to
the Mineola (Table 4), which is to be preferred for home planting.

Clemente: This is a large fruited variety that partakes more of the
nature of its grapefruit parent. The tree is quite similar to that of the
other tangelos. The fruit is similar in form and general appearance to
that of the Thornton tangelo having a warty yellow rind, but it averages
considerably larger in size. The flesh is yellowish and has the tenderness
of a Mandarin orange. There is some of the distinctive flavor of the tan-
gerine, but the grapefruit flavor predominates (Table 4). This variety has
nothing to recommend it above varieties such as Thornton or Mineola.

Lake: This early ripening tangelo might be considered to be an orange
of the Temple type. The trees might be said to have two objectionable
tendencies. They have an upright habit of growth, resemble seedling trees
in appearance, and are extremely thorny. They are not as productive as
some of the other varieties of tangelos. The fruit resembles those of the Tem-
ple orange in size and shape but lacks the rich color of that variety. The
flesh is light orange in color, but has the tenderness typical of the tangerine
fruits. The flavor lacks the distinctive character of the Temple orange but
would be rated as highly acceptable by most consumers (Table 4). Because
of the undesirable characteristics of the trees, this variety is unlikely to
become commercially important.

Wekiwa (Pink Fleshed Tangelo): This is the first citrus fruit to ripen
during the early fall season. The trees of this variety are quite small in
size and resemble miniature grapefruit trees. They regularly produce
heavy crops. The fruits resemble tangerines in size and shape, but have
the external and interior coloring of the Foster grapefruit. The straw-
colored flesh is flecked with pink, but lacks the melting texture character-

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 21

istic of other tangelos. The flavor is mildly subacid with a faint suggestion
0f the pummelo. (Table 4). This is strictly a home orchard variety for
juicing.

Late Varieties

Temple: The origin of Temple is unknown. It appears to be a Mandarin
hybrid. It is propagated commercially, but has encountered serious market-
ing difficulties. The tree is a beautiful, gracefully spreading ‘tree of the
Mandarin orange type that attains considerable size and produces heavy
crops of fruit each year (Table 5). As is typical of many Mandarin
oranges, Temple trees have a tendency to shed a considerable portion of
their fruit at the least provocation. When the crop is harvested before
serious dropping occurs, mature trees will yield Well over 600 pounds per
tree annually. ‘

Fruit of the Temple orange is attractive in appearance and the flavor of
a well ripened fruit is unsurpassed by any variety of citrus. In external
appearance the fruit resembles a large sized tangerine having a pebbly
skin that is a deep orange color overlaid with tangerine red. The internal
structure of the fruit is typical of the Mandarin oranges having a deep
orange-red color and very tender flesh. The flavor of the pulp is an un-
excelled blending of sweetness, acidity and slight bitterness that is at-
tained in no other fruit. The large number of seeds is a serious fault of
this variety (Tables 4 and 7). It is unfortunate that fruit having the fine
characteristics of the Temple orange should not be available to the buying
public. Losses incurred in shipping and marketing this fruit tend to make
it a high priced commodity. Its commercial planting is not being encouraged.

Technical description: Form, oblate-rounded, 7.6 x 6.5 -cm.; Wt., 212.7
gms.; stem-end, smooth; blossom end, very slightly basined; rind color, deep
orange, surface rough, thickness 3 mm.; segments 10-14, average 11.5, fairly
regular; septa texture, fine; flesh color, deep orange; appearance of flesh
texture, fine; juice sacs, small; core type open, medium size; number of
seed 22-30, average 26.2; volume of juice, 108.5 cc.; per cent juice by Wt., 53.0;
typical seed, 13 x '7 mm.; total solids, 12.80; acid, 1.26; solids to acid ratio,
10.2:1. Peel separates easily from pulp, not a good shipper. Ripening
season, January 1 to January 15.

Sampson: This is the best known of the smooth skinned, Worthless
varieties of Tangelo. The trees resemble small grapefruit trees in appear-
ance and regularly produce heavy crops of fruits that have an attractive
appearance. The fruit resembles a large tangerine in size and shape, but
has the color and smoothness of an orange. The flesh has a rich orange
color and a flavor that combines the worst features of the strongest
flavored tangerine and a sour orange (Table 4).

Mandelo: Trees of this variety are quite similar to the Sampson tangelo
in size, general appearance and bearing capacity. The fruit resembles an
oblong, smooth skinned lemon in appearance and is fully as poor as Sampson
in flavor (Table 4).

22 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

wksounm >.$>
6130mm an»;
618.5 55>

wlfimsoa 93>

.OIQ>$QDUOMQC5

6:30?

51:55

“mlwsoanm 3.3x.“
N wlmwwwm 3m.“

w wlmwn o Z
u wlwwflwwww

M wlnaowumwmwwaw "GIQONVGW wcwzooxm

u wlswoofim EEwwE
u wlwofim 552x25
u Twfiwozwonm 3.5a.“

u wlcwoofim mum?
u wlwwpsw 98>
u wrmiuoswonn 28/

$452" cause.“ E E01» “wlmzowooooan zaw>

wlxww? uwlaowt» Esmwwfi Nwlmfloaou?» 53>
"wcwwwq
w w m c052 c082 w .3220 w w w w 32 . . . . . . . . . . dam-PW

w w w i... >25; 2mm w 82% w w w w E23 . . . . . . . . . . . wZEQ>P

w w w UPTQWGQHO ufiéwcmwo w 3w3o w w w w BE . . . . . . . . ..o_:wmEw.~

N w w 5.52 c052 w @350 w w N. w E23 . . . . . . . . éowiowyw

w w n omcwho owcmko w vwmEo w w w h SB . . . . . . . . . . .Q_QEQF

w m N c052 c052 w “Sine w w N. w 3B . . . . . . . . . 51.58am

w m w @958 omcsmpo w 33cc w w w w 32 . . . . . . . . icowaEmw

w w w wfiéwcfio $92.. N. e520 w w N. w E335 . . . . . . . . . .2ouE2

w w w coEB coEB w @550 w w N. N1 BE . . . . . . . . ..o_ow:w2

w m. w @958 owcwwo N. 3x30 w w w m. 2.6m. . . . . . . . . . . . . 52nd

w w w c052 52:2 w Sine w N. n w EEwQE . . . . . . . . 6.5266

w w w omits coEfi w Bins w w N. w 5:255 . . . . . . . . . . 6:022
mam wwosmfi: 332m E  wwoc @925 vim 51/3 360v powrw , micvndm >$iw>
éwww .530 iwooEw Avswobw AKA we comavm
$3 3015- o-Qucaa. 4 011C.

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 23

Yalaha: Trees of this variety are somewhat similar t0 those of the
Lake but are more prolific. The fruit is similar to that of the Thornton in
external appearance, but it has the rind and flesh color of the Lake tangelo.
As grown in the Lower Valley the flavor is an unfortunate combination of
bitterness, sourness and muskiness (Table 4).

Seminole: Trees of this variety appear to be vigorous and quite pro-
ductive. They are similar in shape to those of the grapefruit but are smaller
in size. The fruit is somewhat similar in appearance to that of the Clemente
but the flavor of the pulp is extremely unpalatable.

Umatillo: This extremely late maturing variety is even more attractive
in appearance than Mineola. The trees resemble those of Thornton in
general appearance and productive capacity. The fruits are similar to
those of the Temple orange in size and shape but resemble a small bright
orange colored grapefruit in smoothness and general appearance. The
flesh has the color of that of the King Mandarin and is quite tender. The
flavor of the Dancy tangerine predominates and the juice is sharply acid
(Table 4), even when the fruit is fully ripe. A fruit of this type might
appeal to the fountain trade, "where highly colored, acid fruits are in demand.

MANDARINS AND TANGERINES

The slip skin, or kid-glove type, of orange has never attained much
commercial importance in the United States. The most extensive plant-
ings of tangerines and satsumas have been made in Florida and in the Gulf
Coast region of several southern states. Due to their perishable nature,
it seems impracticable to merchandise this type of fruit so as to yield the
producers a reasonable profit.

Unfortunately, all of the commercial varieties of Mandarin oranges
produce fruits which have rinds that predispose them to bruising. Most
varieties are objectionably seedy and have a relatively high percentage of
rag and low percentage of juice.

Dancy: This is the best known and the most extensively planted of
the tangerine varieties. The trees are relatively short lived under normal
Valley conditions but regularly produce heavy crops of fruit that matures
in mid-December (Table 5). The fruit is relatively small in size and is
highly colored inside and out. It contains an objectionable amount of rag,
and the flavor is too strong to be highly acceptable to most consumers.
There is a limited demand for fruit of this type, but a tangerine enterprise
is too highly speculative to be recommended.

Technical description: Form oblate, 5.84 cm. x 4.89 cm.; wt., 90.3 gms.;
stem end slightly necked, blossom end slightly basined; rind, color deep
orange, surface fairly smooth, thickness 2.0 mm.; segments 8-13, average
10.7; fairly regular; septa texture, coarse; flesh color, deep orange; ap-
pearance of flesh texture, coarse; juice sacs, large; core type open, large;
number of seed 10-22, average 15.2; volume of juice, 86.1 cc.; per cent

24 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 5. Mandarin orange and tangelo variety test. Yield in pounds per tree,
19

     

34-1938
Year
Variety set 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 Avg.
Clementine Tangerine. . .. 1927 145.7 232.0 451.0 241.0 551.3 324.2
Dancy Tangerine . . . . . . . . 1925 321.0 543.0 396.0 195.0 337 . 5 358.5
King Mandarin* . . . . . . . .. 1925 85.0 0.0 10.0 30.0 10.0 27.0
Temple Orange . . . . . . . . . . 1925 165.0 498.7 664.7 749.0 826.7 580.8
Temple Orange . . . . . . . . . . 1927 182.7 259.3 256.7 341.1 433.3 294.6
Thornton Tangelo . . . .. . .. 1927 191.3 240.7 477.3 356.3 571.0 367.3
Willow Leaf Mandarin. . .. 1927 357.7 306.0 496.0 396.0 454.7 402 .1

*On Rough Lemon.

juice by wt., 43.3; typical seed 12 _x 4 mm.; total solids, 12.55; acid, 1.29;
solids to acid ratio, 937:1. Ripening season, December 1 to January 1.

Warnurco: This is the large fruited mid-season (November) tangerine.
The trees have an upright habit of growth and regularly produce abundant
crops of fruit. The fruits resemble those of the Temple orange in general
appearance, but are lighter in color. The pulp is milder in flavor than that
of the Dancy tangerine, but the percentage of rag (fiber) is especially high.
There appears to be no justification for the commercial propagation of this
variety.

Clementine (Algerian): This variety of tangerine was developed by
Father Clemente and was sent to this country from the Botanical Gardens
of the Sultan of Algeria. The trees are quite vigorous and produce heavy
crops of fruit over a long period of years (Table 5). The trees resemble
those of the Wild Mandarin in appearance and are quite attractive.

The fruits are relatively small in size, and lack the deep color that is'

characteristic of Dancy. The first fruits ripen in October and the crop
should be harvested before December, as over-ripe fruit deteriorates rapidly.
The flavor is much milder than that of the Dancy tangerine and is highly ac-
ceptable to most persons. The pulp is less fibrous than that of Dancy but ex-
treme seediness is an objectionable feature. Unless Valley shippers will
agree to open the tangerine shipping season in November, the acreage
planted to this variety should not be further increased.

Technical description: Form oblate, 6.00 cm. x 4.97 cm.; wt., 97.8 gms.;
stem end fairly smooth, blossom end slightly basined; rind color, deep
orange, surface rough, thickness 2.2 mm.; segments 8-13, average 9.6;
fairly regular; septa texture, coarse; flesh color, deep orange; appearance
of flesh texture, slightly coarse; juice sacs, fairly large; core type open,
large; number of seed 5-25, average 13.8; volume of juice, 33.4 cc.; per
cent juice by wt., 43.2; typical seed, 8 X 6 mm.; total solids, 13.97; acid, 1.15;
solids to acid ratio, 12.1:1. Ripening season, October 15 to November 1.

Spice (‘Villow Leaf): This variety of Mandarin has little or no com-
mercial value. The trees are attractive in appearance and produce good

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 25

crops of fruit (Table 5). The fruit is similar to that of the Clementine in
size and general appearance, but is lighter in color. The pulp has a high
percentage of rag and a pleasing spicy aroma. There is no market demand
for fruit of this type.

Technical description: Form oblate, 6.41 cm. x 5.41 cm.; wt., 117.93
g1ns.; stem end moderately necked, blossom end slightly basined; rind,
color orange, surface rough, fairly tough; thickness, 3_.1 cm; segments 11-12,
irregular; septa texture, medium; juice sacs, short and wide; appearance of
flesh texture, medium; core type, open; size fairly large, texture coarse; num-
ber of seed 24-25, average, 24.9; volume of juice, 35.46 cc.; per cent juice
by wt., 29.80; total solids, 12.05; acid, 1.06; sugar to acid ratio, 11.3721.
Ripening season, November 15 to December 1. Ripens before Dancy but
later than Clementine.

King: This large fruited late maturing mandarin orange is not adapted
in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. The trees have an upright habit of
growth, are unattractive in appearance and are lacking in productivity
(Table 5). The fruit is larger than that of the Temple orange and is
much rougher in appearance. The pulp has a rich reddish-orange color,
but the percentage of juice, by weight, is relatively low due to the thick
rind, abundance of seed and rag. Temple is far superior to the King mandarin
under Valley conditions.

Kinnow: This King x Satsuma hybrid appears to offer some promise
in the Valley as a late December variety. The young trees appear to be
quite productive. The fruits resemble a smooth Temple orange in general
appearance, and the interior quality is good. The fruit seems to have Jess
rag and much better flavor than the Dancy tangerine.

Owari Satsuma: This tangerine-like fruit ripens at about the same
season as the Clementine tangerine (October 15) but must be grown on
citrange stock to be successful under Valley conditions. The trees are
quite hardy to cold. They have a weeping willow-like habit of growth and
the foliage is not as dense as that of other citrus varieties. The fruits are
somewhat similar to the Clementine tangerine in general appearance but
are larger. During a favorable season, the fruits contain a relatively high
percentage of juice of pleasing, mild flavor. The percentage of rag and
the number of seeds are less than that found in fruits of the Clementine
variety (Table 8).

Technical description: Form oblate, 6.3 x 4.9 cm.; weight, 104.1 gms.;
stem end, smooth; blossom end, smooth; rind, color light orange, surface
rough, thickness 3.4 mm.; segments 8-13, average 10.7, fairly regular; septa
texture, medium; flesh color, orange; appearance of flesh texture, fine; juice
sacs, fairly small; core type open, medium size; number of seed 0-8, average
3.6; volume of juice, 41.9 cc.; per cent juice by wt., 41.9; typical seed, 11.4
x 7.3 mm.; total solids, 11.55; acid, .92; solids to acid ratio, 12.5:1. Ripening
season, September 15 to October 15;

26 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

LEMONS

Lemons have been quite popular with orchard property developers be-
cause of the good financial returns received for summer fruit. Since most
commercial varieties of lemons are quite tender to cold, commercial plant-
ings should be limited to acreage that can be protected by heating.

Eureka: This is the standard commercial variety and seems to thrive
under Valley conditions. The trees are large and vigorous and produce a
high percentage of summer fruit. Because of the dense nature of their
growth, they require considerably more pruning than other types of citrus.
They are much less thorny than those of the Lisbon variety but are some-
what more tender to cold.

The fruit is distinctly more uniform than that of the Lisbon, but it is
not as smooth skinned as that of the Meyer variety. It contains few seeds
and the percentage of acid in the juice is relatively high (Table 6). The
juice content even of cured Eureka lemons is much less than that of
uncured fruits of the Meyer variety. Eureka is probably the best of the cold
tender commercial varieties available for planting.

Lisbon: This old variety appears to be somewhat more hardy to cold
than Eureka. Extreme thorniness of the trees is a highly objectionable
feature. The trees are quite vigorous but are not as productive as those
of Eureka (Table 6). The fruits are quite rough, lack uniformity and
are not the equal of those of Eureka. There appears to be no justifica-
tion for the commercial propagation of Lisbon lemons in this region.

Hayden: This is a variety that was discovered near Edinburg, Texas.
The trees are similar in appearance to Eureka and are said to produce
good crops of fruit. The fruit is distinctly oblong and remarkably smooth
for a lemon. There are practically no seeds and the juice is abundant and
highly acid (Table 6). This recently discovered type seems to have possi-
bilities.

Meyer: This hardy lemon was introduced from China by the U. S. De-
partment of Agriculture plant explorer, Frank Meyer. It has never been
propagated commercially except in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. It is
the most resistant to cold of any commercial variety of lemon. The trees
are somewhat like those of the Eureka in appearance, but also have some
of the spreading characteristics of the Mexican lime. They are considerably
smaller than grapefruit trees of comparable age but regularly produce
heavy crops of fruit which mature during late summer and the fall sea-
sons (Table 6). Trees grown from cuttings have produced average yields
ranging well above 500 pounds per tree annually.

The fruit partakes of the nature of both the lime and the lemon, having
the size, shape, and color of a lemon (Table 6) and the bouquet of the lime.
Because of the exceptionally high juice content and its aromatic bouquet,
this variety is particularly popular with the soda fountain, bar and restaur-
ant trade. However, the Meyer lemon is a thin skinned fruit that dries out

27

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY

.o|000000 0m|0000000 000000000000 0mlm000o0w 000000030
0.100000 00000000000 500000 >.00>
0:000:00 2010000000000 00000000000 0a|00000~00w »00>
6100000000 »00> 0m|000000000000 000100000 »00>
.c|000:000000 00000 mml000svo000 000000000000 0a|0>0000000000 00.00.?
610.0000 000F000» 00000000 000 @000» 51000000000000 »00>
61100000000 000 30000000000 000100000000 00000000000 0m|»0000000 »00>

0700:0000 »00> 000100000000 30000000» 00000000000000 m0 30005
610000 00005 5.1000000 000000000000 000000000000 »00>

000000000

H m »00>0
©0000 30:0» 0 0002000 N N m N m m 000000005 . . . . . .000@w20@>

m w 30:0»
$00020. w 00000000 00. a a v a 00. 0000000005 00E . . . . . . . ..0003000.n0
N m 30:0» 0 00000000 a w 0. N w 00 :00 0000 . . . . . 20000000000000
0“ 0 »00.0>0 N. 00000000000 m w h a N m 00000000000 . . . . . . . . .0000000~0

a 0,0 >000 0.0
-0 00000 a 0000000050 m. m m 0 a m. 00000000050000 .wm00000000.H 00»00>0

a w 30000»
00000000 a 00000000020 m. m m w m 00. 00000000000. 0000 . . . . . . . . 10000030
0 a B000...» N m0000000 m m. v a m, a 00000000000 . . . . . . . . ..00000_.00‘0
m 00 30:0» 0 1000x0000 m 0 0.0 m. m. 0 00000000000 . . . . . . . . 1000000000
0 a 30:0» 0,0 00000.00 m. N. 00. m. N a 0000000000 . . . . . . . . 60000030

00000000. »00v00< 000000 00 £000 0000b 000m >.00>00 »000 $000 i @0000 1 00m0>
0000C |00000000w 00000000 000000 0000000,: -0000: 000000000000
00 00000.0. »00M00>

w000m0000000000U 0000000

00000003000000 0000

0000 .3000?» 000000010

d 030,0.

 

28 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

rapidly and is not popular with retail fruit vendors who display fruit with-
out refrigeration. Trees grown as rooted cuttings are good producers but
those budded on sour orange stock have not proven entirely satisfactory.

Technical description: Form, round, 6.06 x 6.44 cm.; wt. 123.7 gms.;
stem end, smooth; blossom end, smooth; rind color, green, surface smooth,
thickness 2 mm.; segments, 9-11, average 10.2, fairly regular; septa tex-
ture, medium; flesh color, light yellow; appearance of flesh texture, medium;
juice sacs, fairly small; core type closed, fairly large; number of seed,
6-16, average 10.3; volume of juice, 55.7 cc.; per cent juice by wt., 46.6;
typical seed, 9 x 6 mm.; total solids, 9.30; acid, 4.16. Ripening season,
August 1 t0 November 1.

Rickert: This strain of the Meyer variety, is thought to be congenial
with sour orange rootstock. The fruit is not as uniform in shape and
conformation as that of the original Meyer strain (Table 6).

Ponderosa: This is a novelty variety and is grown principally for the
ornamental value of the large fruits. The trees seldom attain large size
but regularly produce good yields of large coarse fruits (Table 6). The
fruit has no commercial value unless commercial by-products could be
prepared from the fruit or rind.

Variegated: This is another of the ornamental types of lemon which
has rather attractive light green foliage mottled with ivory. The small
rough fruits also have this mottled appearance (Table 6).

Perrine: This hybrid variety was developed by U. S. Department of
Agriculture workers who crossed the Mexican lime with the Genoa lemon.
The trees are more typical of the lime in their tenderness to cold, thorniness
and general appearance (Table 6). The fruit is about the size and shape
of the Persian (Tahiti) lime and has the typical lime color. The flesh is
gray in appearance, lacking in aroma, but has a relatively high acid con-
tent (Table 10). This variety has few if any qualities to recommend it as
a commercial sort except that the fruit keeps well after being harvested.

Technical description: Form, ovate, 5.7 x 7.2 cm.; wt., 110.4 gms.; stem
end, necked; blossom end, fairly smooth; rind, color deep yellow, surface
fairly rough, thickness 4 mm.; segments 10-12, average 11.1, fairly regular;
septa texture, medium; flesh color, light yellow; appearance of flesh tex-
ture, medium; juice sacs, medium; core type closed, small sized; number
of seed, 16-40, average 24.1; volume of juice, 35.9 cc.; per cent juice by
wt., 33.9; typical seed, 12 x 6 mm.; total solids, 11.05; acid, 7.70. Ripening
season, August 1 to November 1.

LIMES

Limes are the tenderest members of the citrus family and commercial
plantings should be provided with adequate heater protection.

Mexican (Key): This appears to be the most desirable commercial type.
The trees attain large size and produce large crops of fruit, most of which

i,

 

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 29

ripens during the summer season. These trees are extremely thorny and
the fruit is harvested with great difliculty. The fruits are small in size,
have a thin rind and high juice content. The juice is highly acid and has
a delightful bouquet that is characteristic of the green fleshed limes. The
fruits dry out rapidly after being removed from the trees, and for this
reason, are not popular with retail fruit vendors and storekeepers.

Mexican Thornless: This variety originated in Mexico and was first
propagated commercially by Valley nurserymen. The trees have a charac-
teristic upright habit of growth quite unlike other varieties of limes. They
are not as productive as the true Mexican lime and produce a considerable
portion of their crop during the ofl’ season. The fruit is quite similar to
that of the original Mexican variety, and can be harvested without difficulty.
This is an excellent variety for the home garden but is not likely to be
popular with commercial orchardists because of its low productive capacity.

Persian (Tahiti): This large fruited variety has few points t0 recom-
mend it. The fruit is too large to meet the needs of the fountain trade and
dries out too rapidly to meet with favor from retail merchants. The trees
are tender to cold and appear to be rather susceptible to breakage. The
fruits are about the size of a small lemon, have attractive green flesh and
the high acid and aroma characteristics of the Mexican lime. The com-
mercial planting of this variety is not advocated.

KUMQUATS

Kumquat fruits have little or no commercial value except as decorations
for Christmas packages. The trees are chiefly prized by home owners
because of their ornamental value. The trees are the pygmies of the com-
mercial citrus tribe but produce an abundance of small brightly colored
fruits which are rather fibrous and lacking in juice. Kumquats are some-
what similar to Satsuma oranges in that they are not congenial with sour

g orange understock. They may be propagated successfully on Rough lemon

or the more vigorous types of citrange.

Nagami: This variety is probably the best known and most widely
propagated of the kumquats. The trees are rather upright in their habit
of growth and produce abundant crops of showy fruit. The fruits are
about the size and shape of a large olive and have the skin color and tex-
ture of an orange. The flavor is similar to that of orange peel.

Meiwa: Trees of this variety are more spreading in their habit of
growth and are not nearly so productive as those of the Nagami variety.
The fruits are more nearly spherical in shape and are less highly colored

than those of the Nagami variety, but contain more juice.

Marumi: Trees of this variety are somewhat like a round headed shrub
in appearance, and usually produce an abundance of tiny, orange-like fruits.
This variety is useful only as an ornamental plant.

30 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

LIMEQUATS

These acid fruits were produced by workers of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture in an attempt to combine the cold hardiness of the kumquat
with the high acid characteristic of the Mexican lime.

Lakeland: This is the best adapted, but lacks the distinctive flavor and
aroma of the Mexican lime parent. The trees are definitely more resistant
to cold than those of the Mexican lime, and the fruits contain a high per-
centage of acid. Since the fruits keep better in storage than do those of
the Mexican lime, they might find favor with the fountain trade.

Eustis: Trees of this variety are quite similar to Lakeland but have
not proven as well adapted to Valley conditions.

Tavares: This odd shaped variety has many of the desirable character-
istics of the Mexican lime combined with the cold resistance and good
keeping quality of the kumquat. The trees are upright in their habit of
growth and are much less prolific than those of the Lakeland. The fruits
are elongated, pyriform and have greenish flesh similar in appearance
and flavor to those of the Mexican lime. Unfortunately, the fruit of this
variety is so freakish in appearance that it would be difficult to sell.

MISCELLANEOUS TYPES

Calamondin (C. ntitis): This citrus species is planted primarily for
its ornamental value. The trees, when grown from seed, are upright in
their habit of growth and attain considerable size. They resemble mandarin
orange trees in their general appearance, and the fruit is typically a very
small, highly acid tangerine. Calamondin fruit contains a high percentage
of sharply acid juice that has the mandarin orange flavor. It is used to
a limited extent in flavoring tea and other drinks.

Seville (orange): This is the marmalade orange of commerce. The
trees are somewhat similar to grapefruit trees in their habit of growth,
but are smaller in size and have a very distinctive, ornamental type of
foliage. They normally produce abundant crops of fruits. The fruits are
relatively small, rough, sour oranges and have a thick warty rind. The
pulp contains a considerable amount of fiber but is highly prized for the
manufacture of bitter orange marmalade.

Citrons: These novelty fruits are sometimes grown as a curiosity, but
have no commercial value. The trees are tender to cold and are unattractive
in appearance. Some varieties, such as the Italian, are much more de-
sirable from the ornamental standpoint than are Etrog or the citron of
commerce.

Calishu (orange): This is a Calamondin-like fruit that might be de-
scribed as a sweet fruited type of Calamondin. The trees are similar in
appearance to tangerine trees and the fruits are indistinguishable from
those of the Calamondin in appearance.

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY 31

Rangpur (lime): This odd citrus fruit is well adapted to conditions in
the Lower Rio Grande Valley but has no commercial value. This variety
is very similar to the Rose Lemon of South America. The trees resemble
those of the Meyer lemon in appearance. They regularly produce enormous
crops of fruit resembling wild mandarins. The fruit is quite similar to the
Dancy tangerine in appearance and has tangerine colored flesh and sharply
acid juice. These fruits are used to a limited extent by the bar trade and
as a substitute for lemons.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Grower interest in varieties is always a favorable sign, as it shows that
the prospective planter of trees is aware of the benefits to be derived from
using the better adapted varieties for commercial planting.

In theLower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, citrus growers are principally
interested in sweet oranges (Citrus sinensis) and grapefruit (C. grandis).
None of the varieties of pummelo (C. vmwciavia) are commercially desirable,
and all varieties of lemon (C. limonia) and lime (C. limetta) are quite tender
to cold. There is limited interest in tangerines (C. nobilis), but marketing
difliculties always act as a check on the popularity of this species. Grower in-
terest is now based on salability and shipping quality of the fruit as well as
productive capacity of the trees, and this interest is reflected in the demand
for nursery stock. Like many other horticultural enterprises, citrus fruit
growing is somewhat speculative in nature, and the grower who uses good
judgment in selecting the varieties he puts his money into is most likely
to be successful.

Since standardization is a highly desirable factor in citrus fruit pro-
duction, it is unnecessary for nurserymen or growers to burden their
minds with more than a half dozen varieties.

Orange varieties of the early, midseason, and late types are available for
commercial planting. The Hamlin orange is the outstanding early variety
because of the smoothness and fine appearance of the nearly seedless fruit
and because of the exceptionally high productive capacity of the trees.
Joppa Seedless is a midseason variety Worthy of commercial recognition
because the trees are only slightly less productive than those of the Hamlin
variety, and the fruit is definitely superior in flavor, keeping quality, and
size. A good demand for authentic trees of this variety is likely to develop
during the next few years. Valencia is the standard late variety, but
early, seedless strains of this fine variety are now available. The cold
hazard is the principal factor limiting the popularity of the Valencia
variety. Navel oranges are not popular with Valley growers, but there is
a limited demand for the large, mild flavored fruits of this variety. Because
of the exceptional vigor of the trees and also because of the excellent interior
quality of its fruit, Texas Navel is recommended above other strains of the
navel orange. There are many other varieties of oranges which thrive in
this region, but the Station feels justifled in recommending only the above
mentioned varieties.

32 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Grapefruit is not as popular with Valley growers as it was back in 1927-
1929, when good Marsh fruit sold for forty dollars per ton. The trend is
now definitely toward the pink or red fleshed varieties, and there seems to
be little justification for increasing the acreage of standard Marsh grape-
fruit. It seems highly desirable to reduce the acreage planted to seedy
varieties and acreage on marginal lands. Ruby (Red Blush) grapefruit is
decidedly the most popular fruit of this type, and its popularity is well
deserved.

Tangerines can hardly be classed as a commercial type of citrus, as the
demand for tangerines is very limited. Due to their highly perishable na-
ture, it is not likely that there will ever be a heavy demand for tangerines,
tangelos, Temple oranges, or Satsumas. Clementine is the best early
tangerine for Valley planting, but the fruit must be moved before Decem-
ber 15. Some of the new tangelo varieties such as Mineola and Lake and
two of the new King orange hybrids are fine fruits for the home garden
but have no commercial value.

Limes and lemons are the cold tender species of citrus, and as few
growers care to risk extra hazards in the production of fruit, the acreage
planted to these crops is not likely to increase rapidly. The good prices
received for lemons has encouraged persons who are able to afford heater
protection to enter lemon production on a limited scale. Eureka is still
the leading commercial variety of the standard type, while the Meyer cold
resistant lemon, grown from cuttings, is the most dependable acid fruit
for the average Valley grower to produce.

There are many varieties of citrus fruit which could be grown in the
Valley, but since most of the fruit is produced for sale, it pays to confine
commercial plantings to a few varieties known to be popular with shippers
and handlers of citrus fruit.

Table 7. Summary of orange variety descriptions

r7wvwzflIIIvIfrlWflr""fW“"WT"V‘ ""'""*" ‘

 

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY

     

   

- om
gs §qmF-qq wm wwhv omowmmm aw:
2=> oF whom-ww mm ommh mvmvmmo ma ho"
e123“ w g ,1 ~ M" ~ _"
oz .. ~

-N

~ o
wg wmvw-on mm wwom w~wvNhm Qng
§> om Bhmm-MW em ommw mmnwmov aw cow
Q6 CO C0 'l F1 Qt.“ F F1 '
ez N "" ~ E

~m

- w
Ag? wwcm -OOO QO cOv-wON OQFOLGFN 
m3> om wwmm-fin wv ommh mvwmmhm mm mo"
Nmw m F vl ~ Nv F -
B=Z °° 1"“. " 8

~v-<
c‘ ~ WJOIF
M wmmow-v on wwvo ¢Fmmcwm mad
U ....... .. .... ....... ..
C‘. OF BBOROLO ~00 m?‘ FNLOO‘: fifififlfivfifi l\l\ F0 '
O C’! f0 ‘ F1 F1153 F1 F1 N
E O1 F1 F‘
>

- 010w
2 wm>ao~o co mwco aommmmo wN&
Q 0F N©Nfi©~@ mm FFNQ FmFwwwm mm NF‘
E m F - F1 NQK) F1 v-d o
i N " H
é vmahw-m hv cwmo omm~mmw wag
E3 o~ wwNmm~m mv oFwh mvwmmmw ww mo"
w CG O - v—\ v-wfifi" P1 '
.2” m - —~ 2
P4
~ FQIF
N NO~#N N wm mh~o wvwwmha mm5
Q om hnwmm-w wm oFmb mmwmwmm mh Fofl
Q1 m c: - F< 6L1 F1 F1 '
S: F1 v-u g
- QMQF
h n~woc-0 co mmoo oooomww mhé
Q 0F hnhmm-w aw Fmww mvm~mbc ew 00”
5 m F1 - F1 Fad" F4 F1 '
m N 2
v mmF
,0 wmemo-w we owmo oomohhm aw;
Z1 om hhcnm-m vv Fmnh mvwmhwm cw mcN
~Q_ . N - F FOQ‘ v- q
:16} o] F‘ F1
OFF:
cg FhwFO O ma? Focow NP1©N~VC> Ohm’
33 om hwmmm m mm Fmww vmamwxm mm NO‘
l-O y; 0Q - F F<l\<‘ Fe F-l '57
$8- ?‘ P1
*fl
- v-iv-lr-i
5 Fwwmo-o mm name momvnmm mwfi
E om wcomm-w mm oFc> mewmvnv mw FQQ
w Q0 . F1 l\<r v-l F1
N F‘ P“
ifi
P-i
II IIIIIII IE III Ilfiii; I EII
._ .._.... ._ ... 2.... Q I WI.
:2 j'IIIIiIII;i3I AIIIIJZIJ. @132
‘,2  .:--3..~.-Q. f-"ZW-w-J
7 01 ...-0.. .5 .o.. :_....; -- QQ“
g is ---:3-~ ~a -E-- w~""I% -~ w<m
"2 Z'~~ " '“ 'W'I “""'@ 1'
3 Ew xiii;  IgI.“?§,’III°-Q J3EE
Q w§ E.jw -_ -3 EH0. a5...Qs -_ gig
U :5 UIg€EZLJ  cs5; Qvj1'.E-g-~EE' 3U
g» h-Em-QQSQ 6Q 2:323 figgomi-ZTEEE <n-=3
3 on c W8 f5‘ woo “firm? ‘Q 5m
ma, fipanqggmu 5,; mw"‘o “mn""QQC\'/)“~Tg0-Q
..» Q __, Qi- 1- #12:. .. 43;: o___
~—E 55 O3 O wPm§ 5 wEr_~ ~~_
5 E"-’°0"$” “D U “H @5900 gQz-allb“ Ovo
“Q..mg._<C-A>g..O=-~..g‘rn--xu‘_;_.__huc'fi 
‘"“.,‘:’,~-.o¢’2_°._<_V-—'U Em-gcp QE-fi QEOOEOQ-g o;
5¢§QG;mmLEEmE&Z£mh§P=UUA>L;A2
ZZL ' Z L h F

34 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Key to citrus variety descriptive table 7
Stem-end shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—necked 5—smooth 9—basiend
Blossom-end shape. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—necked 5—smooth 9—basined
Navel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1—small, 5—medium. 9—large) (1—protruding, 5—cven, 9—reccssed)

Rind color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—green —ye low 9—orange

Rind smoothness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-smooth 5—rough 9—wrinkled

Septa texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—fine 5—mcdium 9—coarse

Flesh color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l—colorlcss 5—y\-llow 9—orange

Flesh texture (appearance) . . . . . . . .. 1—fine 5—medium 9—coarse

Juice sacs (size) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1—small 5—medium 9—large

Core type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—open 5—densc 9—closcd

Core size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—small 5—mcdium 9-—large

Table 8. Summary of tangerine variety descriptions
Willow
Characters Dancy Clementine Leaf Satsuma
No. fruits per sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 3O 30
No. samples measured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 1 1
Fruit:
Diameter, cm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.2 6.0 6.4 6.3

Depth, cm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.9 5.2 5.4 4.9

Weight, gms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 102.3 101.3 117.9 104.1

Stemendshape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.5 4.6 3.1 5.3

Blossom end shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.9 7 .0 6.1 5.9

Navel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rind:

Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9.0 9. 9.0 .1

Smoothness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.0 4.8 5.0 5.4

Thickness, mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 2. 3 .1 3.4
Flesh'

No. segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.9 9.7 11.5 10.7

N0. irregular segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.2 4.0 3.0

Septa texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.8 6.6 4.0 6.1

Flesh color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0

Texture (appearance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 6.0 5.0 1.0

Juice sacs (size) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.6 7.0 8.1 2.3

Core type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.3

Coresize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.6 7.1 6.6 6.2

N0. seeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.1 16.6 24.9 3.6

Volume juice, cc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.6 42.1 35.5 41.9

Percent juice by weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.3 43.2 29.8 41.9
Typical Seed:
Length, mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 8 1O 11.4

Width, mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 5 7.3

Total Soluble Solids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.55 13.97 12.05 11.55

Percent Citric Acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.29 1 . 15 1.06 0.92

Solids to Acid Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .7:1 12.10:1 11 .37:1 12.5:1
Key to citrus variety descriptive table 8 '
Stem-end shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—necked 5—smcoth 9—basincd

Blossom-end shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—ncckcd 5—smooth 9—basined

Rind color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—green 5—yellow 9—orange

Rind smoothness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1~smooth 5—rou h 9—wrinklcd

Septa texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1—fine 5—me ium 9—coarse

Flesh color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—c0lorless 5—yellow 9—orange

Flesh texture (appearance) . . . . . . . .. 1—finc 5—medium 9—coarse

Juice sacs (size) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1—small 5—medium 9—large

Core tvpe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—open 5—dense 9—closed

Core size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—small 5—medium 9——large

35

CITRUS VARIETIES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY

53m fir?

 

   

   

7N.“ fimmfw #8 12$ Th6 10¢ 1v.» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......oSwM E04 3 mwnom

ovA vnA wwA vm; on} wwA om; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .664. QCZU i630;

2A: 3.2 5W: 3h: mv 2 2.2 ~52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125cm 023cm 1:8.

m w w m 2 m a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE5 .535

HL.%       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..EE 
“wuow EBQAH.

mmbv wmfiv wMWmv wndm oobv ov.wv ouvv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IEwSK an v23 2.33m

~vmN mfnoN vdoN vm _: in: o. 2.; méNfi  120w 62:“ oEEo>

vSv Nbm 5g mv fin m6 min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imwuow .oZ

>6 m6 miv m o w m m6 min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13G QEU

9w 9w omm mWN MN m5 m5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I093 PSU

ob m6. w m Tm m m. v.m wN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IENEV mvww Q23.

ab. min e6. fim 5m w.m NM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . nnAouzwiHwagawv opsfifluh.
v8 Em:
i6 Em: Q... ca. i=5 3% i5 Em: Q... Q... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85. zmui
5m m}. av v5 xv wv wv  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6533 mawm
5N w; h.” mh v.v v.v ob . . . . ..3=@Emum hfiflmuim dZ
nNfi 5N~ ma. wfi ma; mNfi 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Efiiwaw .02
"swarm
N.“ w.» o5 5o m8 wd mfw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tEidmvcxuwnP
N.v aim wk min x5 v.m N.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Immwcsfioegm
*o.m ob oh *o.m o5. oh oh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  ......~o_oU
GEM
       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........0QN5wwvCQEQmwO_m
ab. N6 vb. w...“ ma. w...“ 5m ............onm:wuc@E3w
Q3... as? oNom 95m N.wmv M23 NbmN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :2.» fiws?
>5 N5 yd as M; 5w N.w . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Eo.s7$n_
N : v.2 .92 mim wiofl o.o~ 5m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:3 QBoEID
512k
fi ~ ~ fi fi fi fi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605935 wfimiwm dZ
Awm       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..U@QENW MUQ W.@@:h.# Kvz
hiwoh 35632 5322C EwaEuowC xi; 33$ c982 mhofizfinaU
it?» GOwQEOSH. 2S5

maoSaiumow 32.5.» ‘mafioauhw .3 basal-m

d Q35.

36 BULLETIN NO. 601, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Key to citrus variety descriptive tables 9 and 10
Stem-end shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—necked 5—smcoth 9—basined

Blossom-end shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—necked 5—:mcoth 9—l)asined

Rind color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—green 5—yellow 9-orange

Rind smoothness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1—smooth 5—rou h 9—v\rinkled

Septa texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1—fine 5—me 111111 9—coarse

Flesh color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—colorless 5—yel]ow 9—orange

Flesh texture (appearance) . . . . . . . .. l-fine —-medium 9—coarse

Juice sacs (size) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1—small 5—medium 9—large

Core type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—0pen 5—dense 9—cl0sed

Core size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—smaIl 5—medium 9—large
Table 10. Summary of lemon variety descriptions
Characters Meyer Perrine
N0. fruits per sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30 30
No. samples measured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 1
Fruit:
Diameter, cm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.06 5.70

Depth, cm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.44 7.24

Weight, ms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 123.70 110.40

Stem en shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1

Blossom end shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Rind:
Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5
Smoothness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
Thickness, mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4
Flesh:
No. segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.20 11.10

No. irregular segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.90 2.50

Septa texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5

Flesh color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4

Texture (appearance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 5

Juice sacs (size) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 5

Core type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9

Core size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.50 3

No. seeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.30 24.10

Volume juice, cc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.70 35.90

Percent juice by weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.60 33.88
Typical seed:
Length, mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12

Width, mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6

Total Soluble Solids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.30 11.05

Percent Citric Acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.16 7.70

Solids to Acid Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.2: 1.411
LITERATURE CITED
1. Friend, W. H. 1933. Citrus Orchard Management in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.

Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. No. 67.
Friend, W. H. 1934.
Hered. 25:358.
Friend, W. H. and Bach, W. J. 1932.
Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 446.
Friend, W. H. and Yarnell, S. H. 1941.

to Yield. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 38: 358-362.
Hume, H. H. 1926. The Cultivation of Citrus Fruits.
Traub, H. P. and Friend, W. H. 1930.

Valley of Texas. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. No. 419.
Traub, H. P., Fraps, G. S., and Friend, W. H. 1930.

9°;"‘?°P‘:“€"°!°

Wood, J. F. and Reed, H. M. 1938.
the Lower Rio Grande Valley.

Grande Valley Grapefruit. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 26:286-296.
Maturity Studies of Marsh Seedless Grapefruit in
Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. No. 562.

The Origin of a Superior Red Fleshed Grapefruit. Jour.

of

Storage Experiments with Texas Citrus Fruit.
Clonal Selection of Grapefruit with Respect

The Macmillan Co., New York.
Citrus Production in the Lower Rio Grande

Quality of Texas Lower Rio