I see various references to Citrus kinokuni mukakukishu. Is this a sloppy way of writing Citrus kinokuni 'Mukakukishu' or Citrus kinokuni var. mukakukishu? If so, which is it?
C. kinokuni hort. ex Tanaka ‘Mukaku kishu’ is what is used in this journal article: Identification of Markers Linked to Seedlessness in Citrus kinokuni hort. ex Tanaka and Its Progeny Using Bulked Segregant Analysis It is interesting that C. kinokuni has an authority of "hort.", meaning "of horticulture"--presumably this is a hybrid whose origins are unknown, and the scientific name cannot be attributed to anyone. Ah, here's from the Wikipedia article: "Under the Tanaka system of citrus taxonomy, it is a separate species, Citrus kinokuni, while the Swingle system groups it with other pure and hybrid mandarins as a single species, Citrus reticulata."... And from Wikipedia on citrus taxonomy: "There remains a lack of consensus as to which wild plants and hybrids merit distinct species status, a phenomenon exacerbated by the prior failure to correctly identify the genetically pure citrus strains and distinguish them from hybrids" Confusing. I wouldn't use Citrus kinokuni mukakukishu though, nor would I suggest it is a var.
Confusing indeed. The Kew database returns Citrus deliciosa for this plant: Citrus kinokuni Yu.Tanaka | Plants of the World Online | Kew Science. I think I'll go with Citrus kinokuni 'Mukakukishu' for now. Ironically citrus is one area where I think it is sometimes clearer to use common names because of conflicting and ever evolving binomial names. And so the periodic changing of plant labels in this jungle continues...
