Keys for and morphological character variation in some Egyptian cultivars of Cucurbitaceae

1 23

Genetic Resources and CropEvolutionAn International Journal ISSN 0925-9864 Genet Resour Crop EvolDOI 10.1007/s10722-012-9924-5

Keys for and morphological charactervariation in some Egyptian cultivars ofCucurbitaceae

Sami Rabei, Reda M. Rizk & Abdel-Hamid A. Khedr

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint

is for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you

wish to self-archive your work, please use the

accepted author’s version for posting to your

own website or your institution’s repository.

You may further deposit the accepted author’s

version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s

request, provided it is not made publicly

available until 12 months after publication.

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Keys for and morphological character variation in someEgyptian cultivars of Cucurbitaceae

Sami Rabei • Reda M. Rizk •

Abdel-Hamid A. Khedr

Received: 7 May 2012 / Accepted: 10 October 2012

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Abstract The cultivated varieties and landraces of

Cucurbitaceae growing in Egypt are presented, 27

taxa, belonging to three genera, six species, and five

subspecies. These characters are arranged according to

their usefulness for identifications as follow: fruit

characters, seed characters and trichome type. Fruit

characters are a good taxonomic tool at varietal level

when combined with the other vegetative characters.

Two keys to 27 cultivated varieties of Cucurbitaceae

(Cucumis, Cucurbita and Luffa) were constructed

using the DELTA software system. One key is used for

identification, and then the other is used as a confir-

matory key. Those keys were built using 36 morpho-

logical characters include vegetative, floral, fruit and

seed characters. There is a significant correlation

between seed size and growth parameters. The growth

parameters of the studied taxa included leaf length/

size, petiole length and corolla length. There is a

highly positive, significant correlation between seed

volume and leaf size (r = 0.81831, P B 0.001), seed

volume and petiole length (r = 0.79112, P B 0.001),

seed volume and leaf length (r = 0.83566, P B 0.001),

and seed volume and corolla length (r = 0.59108,

P B 0.001).

Keywords Computer generating key � Cucumis �Cucurbita �DELTA �Growth parameters � Landraces �Luffa

Introduction

Cucurbitaceae is a family of 118–122 genera and 900

species (Simpson 2010) of monoecious or dioecious

herbs and erect shrubs. The Cucurbitaceae has world

wide distribution, but occur mostly in tropical regions

and are poorly represented in temperate regions.

The family includes economically important food

crops such as Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. &

Nakai (watermelon), Cucumis melo L. (melons),

Cucumis sativus L. (cucumber), Cucurbita pepo

L. and other species (squash, pumpkins). The dried

fruit of several species are used as gourds, those of

Luffa L. (louf) are used as sponges, and some taxa have

medicinal uses. According to Jeffrey (1990), Cucur-

bitaceae is subdivided into two well-defined subfam-

ilies viz.: Zanonioideae and Cucurbitoideae, and eight

tribes representing varying degrees of circumscriptive

cohesiveness. The subfamily Cucurbitoideae has the

most important cucurbit crops, such as Cucumis,

Cucurbita, and Luffa.

S. Rabei (&) � A.-H. A. Khedr

Department of Botany, Faculty of Science,

Damietta University, P.O. Box 34517, Damietta, Egypt

e-mail: [email protected]

R. M. Rizk

Herbarium, National Gene Bank (NGB),

Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt

123

Genet Resour Crop Evol

DOI 10.1007/s10722-012-9924-5

Author's personal copy

The Cucurbitaceae are distinctive in being mostly

monoecious vines with simple, palmately veined and/

or lobed leaves, usually with tendrils; female flowers

are epigynous with parietal placentation and three

carpels; the fruit is a berry, pepo, capsule or samara.

The genus Cucumis is divided into subgenus

Cucumis, containing C. sativus, and subgenus Melo

(Mill.) C. Jeffrey, containing C. melo. The subgenera

are widely separated, to the point that they have been

proposed as two distinct genera (Jeffrey 1980).

Willdenow (1805) recognized 5 cultivated species

of Cucumis. While Naudin (1859) grouped Willde-

now’s species as synonyms under C. melo and divided

the species into 10 entities. Kurz (1877) grouped

C. melo, C. dudaim, C. chate and C. flexuosus into one

group.

Cucumis pubescens Willd. received the name

C. melo L. var. pubescens (Willd.) Kurz, while

Cogniaux and Harms (1924) grouped C. melo,

C. dudaim, C. chate, C. pubescens and C. flexuosus

into C. melo and divided it into two varieties viz.: var.

melo and var. agrestis Naud. A recent monographic

treatment (Kirkbride 1993) recognized 32 species,

including two major groups, cucumbers (C. sativus)

and melons (C. melo).

Linnaeus (1753) used various references, including

herbals, to describe C. pepo. However, the diversity of

cultivars caused him to define some C. pepo varieties

as distinct species. Early classifications described the

cultivars in greater detail (Naudin 1856; Goff 1888),

and Alefeld (1866) considered these varieties to

belong to C. pepo. Primarily on the basis of fruit

morphology, he defined eight varietal groups includ-

ing 66 cultivars.

Castetter (1925) divided edible C. pepo cultivars

into six horticultural groups according to differences

in fruit shape, color, and size. Decker (1988) proposed

a new classification of C. pepo for North and South

America and divided the species into two subspecies

viz.: subsp. pepo and subsp. ovifera (L.) Decker. Paris

(1986) described eight groups of C. pepo edible

cultivars.

Pitrat et al. (2000) gave some notes on infraspecific

classification of cultivars of melon, they adopted the

system of Jeffrey (1980) and classified C. melo into

two subgenera including 16 varieties, five of which

assigned to subsp. agrestis and 11 to subsp. melo.

Nesom (2011) gave an account on certain species and

species complex of Citrullus, Cucumis and Cucurbita

in attempt to apply consistent taxonomic ranking to

wild and related domesticated forms.

Hassib (1938) reported fourteen genera of Cucur-

bitaceae in Egypt, which included wild and cultivated

as well as ornamental species. Citrullus and Cucumis

included both cultivated and wild species, while Luffa

and Cucurbita included only cultivated species.

Montasir and Hassib (1956) recorded seven genera

including both cultivated and wild taxa, and Rizk

(2001) studied cucurbit cultivars and landraces grow-

ing in Egypt.

Tackholm (1974) reported the presence of seven

genera and 11 wild species in Egypt. According to

Boulos (2000) Cucurbitaceae is represented in Egypt

by 8 genera and 13 species, while Heneidaq (2008)

recognized 13 wild species belonging to 9 genera of

Cucurbitaceae in Egypt. In his survey of Cucurbita-

ceae in Egypt, Hassib (1938) reported three varieties

of C. pepo (var. ovifera (L.) Sickenb., var. alba (Harz)

Sickenb. and var. typica Sickenb.)

Identification is the process of determining the

taxon to which a specimen belongs; several methods

are available as aids for this process (Pankhurst 1991).

The most important are conventional identification

keys (Dallwitz et al. 2002). DELTA is a modern

software system for managing taxonomic research

(Dallwitz 2009). DELTA is a collection of sophisti-

cated and powerful data-base programs which stores

morphological data for export in a number of different

formats. In this way it acts as a system for management

of taxonomic data which can be used on a local,

regional or world wide basis to make identifications of

the biota available for whomever needs to use them

(Coleman et al. 2010).

The aim of the present work is to update the

scientific names of the present day cultivated

varieties and landraces of Cucurbitaceae in Egypt.

It also aims to record, identify and collect the

available characters to be used for computer gener-

ation of keys. The keys will help the expert and

non-expert to correctly identify varieties and land-

races of Cucurbitaceae.

Materials and methods

Viable seeds were collected from ripened fruits

and market dealers in Damietta, Egypt. Table 1


123


gives the reference numbers of the investigated

seeds.

The collected seeds were cultivated in fields at the

El-Karawan area of the Kafer El-Bateikh district,

Damietta Governorate, Egypt. The revised taxa are

arranged after Jeffrey (1990). Herbarium voucher

specimens and clean mature seeds are deposited at the

Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Damietta

University, Egypt.

Materials for trichome and leaf epidermal investi-

gations were obtained from the cultivated plants, and

were cleared in 1 % warm lactic acid solution before

direct examination and photographing with a light

microscope (LM).

For each taxon, a photograph of seed and LM

photomicrographs of trichomes are provided.

For the seed descriptions, the measurements given

are the mean of twenty-five well-developed seeds with

the standard error (±) of the means (SE). The

terminology of the seed characters follows Stearn

(1973).

Data for the 37 qualitative and quantitative char-

acters listed in the ‘‘Appendix’’ were collected. The

DELTA programs (Dallwitz et al. 2000) were used to

construct the keys for these taxa, and the character data

were coded in DELTA format. The data were

converted using the TOKEY directives file, and the

KEY program was used to generate two different keys

(Dallwitz et al. 2000; Rabei and El-Gazzar 2007;

Coleman et al. 2010; Rabei 2011).

Results and discussion

Certain morphological characters were investigated

for the distinction of the cultivated taxa of Cucur-

bitaceae in Egypt. These characters are arranged

according to their usefulness for identifications as

follow:

Fruit characters

Fruit characters were used by Hassib (1938) to

distinguish Cucurbitaceae taxa at the varietal level.

Recently, Munger and Robinson (1991) used fruit

characters to distinguish between seven horticulturally

important melon groups.

Fruits of C. melo are oblong or slender and curved

or coiled, pubescent or becoming glabrous, and often

melon scented. The fruit of C. sativus is globular to

oblong to short cylindrical, 14–20 9 5–7 cm, prickly

when immature, flesh firm, green, not sweet and with a

cucumber odour.

Table 1 List of investigated taxa

Ref. Taxa

1 C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Melo’

2 C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Shahd’

3 C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Santawi’

4 C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Santawi Taweel’

5 C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Senani’

6 C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Ananas Kheshen’

7 C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Ananas Naiem’

8 C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Mangawi’

9 C. melo L. subsp. melo var. aegyptiaca Sickenb.

‘Mansouri’

10 C. melo L. subsp. melo. var. aegyptiaca Sickenb.

11 C. melo L. subsp. melo var. dudaim (L.) Naudin

‘Waraqi’

12 C. melo L. subsp. agrestis (Naudin) Pangalo var. dudaim(L.) Naudin ‘Bassusi’

13 C. melo L. subsp. agrestis (Naudin) Pangalo var. dudaim(L.) Naudin ‘Kisaan El-Assal’

14 C. melo L. subsp. agrestis (Naudin) Pangalo var. dudaim(L.) Naudin ‘Qatta Saidi’

15 C. melo L. subsp. melo var. flexuosus (L.) Naudin

‘Firany’


‘Khadra’


‘Beida’

18 C. melo L. subsp. agrestis (Naudin) Pangalo var. chate(Hasselq.) Sageret ‘Aggour’

19 C. sativus L. var. sativus

20 Cucurbita maxima Duchesne ex Lam. ‘Etampes

Pumpkin’ (Abied)

21 C. maxima Duchesne ex Lam. ‘Spanish Pumpkin’(Ahmar)

22 Cucurbita moschata Duchesne ex Lam. ‘Napple

Squash’

23 C. moschata Duchesne ex Lam.‘Long Neapolitan

Squash’

24 C. pepo L. var. ovifera (L.) Alef. ‘Eskandarani’

25 C. pepo L. var. ovifera (L.) Alef. ‘Baladi Khadra’

26 C. pepo L. var. ovifera (L.) Alef. ‘Baladi Beida’

27 Luffa aegyptiaca Mill.

Nomenclature following Hassib (1938), Pitrat et al. (2000),

Jeffrey (2001) and Nesom (2011)


123


Table 2 Seed characters (length, width, thickness, weight, and length 9 broad 9 thickness) of the studied taxa

Taxa code Length ± SE

(mm)

Width ± SE

(mm)

Thickness ± SE

(mm)

Weight ± SE

(g/seed)

L 9 W 9 th

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Melo’ 14.280 ± 0.147 6.400 ± 0.100 2.130 ± 0.0004 0.053 ± 0.002 194.665

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Shahd’ 14.800 ± 0.082 6.640 ± 0.098 2.250 ± 0.0002 0.095 ± 0.001 221.112

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Santawi’ 15.130 ± 0.140 6.440 ± 0.101 2.050 ± 0.0002 0.089 ± 0.001 212.288

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Santawi Taweel’ 13.440 ± 0.101 4.880 ± 0.044 1.890 ± 0.0004 0.051 ± 0.002 123.960

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Senani’ 14.400 ± 0.100 6.220 ± 0.100 1.840 ± 0.0003 0.089 ± 0.002 164.805

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Ananas Kheshen’ 12.260 ± 0.133 5.480 ± 0.098 1.768 ± 0.0003 0.060 ± 0.001 118.783

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Ananas Naiem’ 11.370 ± 0.145 4.780 ± 0.071 1.596 ± 0.0003 0.032 ± 0.001 84.833

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Mangawi’ 12.720 ± 0.092 4.920 ± 0.037 1.500 ± 0.0002 0.043 ± 0.001 93.874

C. melo L. subsp. melo var. aegyptiacaSickenb. ‘Mansouri’

13.240 ± 0.087 6.080 ± 0.094 1.67 ± 0.0250 0.050 ± 0.001 134.434

C. melo L. subsp. melo. var. aegyptiacaSickenb.

14.760 ± 0.087 6.400 ± 0.100 1.866 ± 0.0004 0.054 ± 0.002 176.270

C. melo L. subsp. melo var. dudaim (L.)

Naudin ‘Waraqi’

15.520 ± 0.117 5.520 ± 0.102 2.040 ± 0.0004 0.092 ± 0.002 174.768

C. melo L. subsp. agrestis (Naudin) Pangalo

var. dudaim (L.) Naudin ‘Bassusi’

14.920 ± 0.128 5.960 ± 0.049 1.890 ± 0.0002 0.086 ± 0.001 168.065


var. dudaim (L.) Naudin ‘Kisaan El-Assal’

13.440 ± 0.101 5.240 ± 0.082 1.800 ± 0.0002 0.060 ± 0.001 126.766


var. dudaim (L.) Naudin ‘Qatta Saidi’

12.360 ± 0.098 4.900 ± 0.041 1.874 ± 0.0005 0.056 ± 0.002 113.497

C. melo L. subsp. melo var. flexuosus (L.)

Naudin ‘Firany’

9.000 ± 0.196 4.280 ± 0.108 1.380 ± 0.0003 0.024 ± 0.002 53.394


Naudin ‘Khadra’

13.160 ± 0.160 4.800 ± 0.082 1.502 ± 0.0003 0.041 ± 0.002 94.878


Naudin ‘Beida’

12.880 ± 0.185 4.320 ± 0.095 1.610 ± 0.0003 0.049 ± 0.002 89.583


var. chate (Hasselq.) Sageret ‘Aggour’

14.400 ± 0.100 5.440 ± 0.101 1.746 ± 0.0003 0.058 ± 0.001 136.775

C. sativus L. var. sativus 9.920 ± 0.128 4.640 ± 0.098 1.476 ± 0.0002 0.032 ± 0.001 67.939

C. maxima Duchesne ex Lam. ‘Etampes

Pumpkin’ (Abied)

19.800 ± 0.141 10.320 ± 0.111 2.946 ± 0.0004 0.224 ± 0.004 601.974

C. maxima Duchesne ex Lam. ‘Spanish

Pumpkin’ (Ahmar)

21.000 ± 0.218 11.120 ± 0.133 2.978 ± 0.0010 0.232 ± 0.003 703.370

C. moschata Duchesne ex Lam. ‘Napple

Squash’19.170 ± 0.088 10.000 ± 0.082 2.280 ± 0.0003 0.185 ± 0.002 407.664

C. moschata Duchesne ex Lam.‘Long

Neapolitan Squash’

19.740 ± 0.120 10.040 ± 0.040 2.701 ± 0.0003 0.202 ± 0.002 545.413

C. pepo var. ovifera (L.) Alef. ‘Eskandarani’ 17.640 ± 0.151 9.360 ± 0.162 2.730 ± 0.0010 0.181 ± 0.006 450.751

C. pepo var. ovifera (L.) Alef. ‘Baladi

Khadra’.

17.720 ± 0.092 9.360 ± 0.098 2.496 ± 0.0010 0.197 ± 0.004 413.985

C. pepo var. ovifera (L.) Alef. ‘Baladi Beida’ 17.110 ± 0.136 9.530 ± 0.082 2.432 ± 0.0010 0.172 ± 0.006 398.498

L. aegyptiaca Mill. 13.040 ± 0.147 8.760 ± 0.145 3.060 ± 0.0010 0.164 ± 0.005 349.545

Minimum and maximum values are underlined


123


Fruit of C. melo subsp. melo var. flexuosus is

distinguished from the other studied taxa by the

absence of a central cavity, depressed lines with

hairy surface and skin color, which is white, light

green or dark and light green mottled. Fruits of

Luffa aegyptiaca are cylindrical or elongate-subcla-

vate, glabrous, and dry with spongy mesocarp when

ripe.

Seed characters

Mature-seed characters of the studied taxa are sum-

marized in Table 2, and the seeds are shown in Fig. 5.

Seeds of all examined taxa are ovate to ovate oblong in

outline, flattened to compressed, and the funicular

attachment is terminal.

In C. pepo and C. moschata, seeds have a double

rim, while those of C. maxima have a single rim. In L.

aegyptiaca the seed margin is winged, and those of

Cucumis taxa are smooth, without a rim.

Seeds vary in color from yellow to creamy white or

white in taxa of Cucumis and Cucurbita, and the seeds

of L. aegyptiaca are black.

The seed surface is smooth in Cucumis taxa and

dusty in taxa of Cucurbita and Luffa.

The seed apex tapers in C. melo cultivars; is

truncate in C. sativus var. sativus and cultivars of

Cucurbita; and obtuse in seeds of L. aegyptiaca.

The present investigation showed a wide range of

variation and combinations of seed characters. Seeds

of L. aegyptiaca are easily distinguished by their black

Y =-56.63692+1.22927* x , r = 0.81831

0 200 400 600 800

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1 234

567

89

1011

12

131415

1617

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Lea

f si

ze (

cm)

Seed volume (mm )3

Fig. 1 Regression of seed volume (mm3) and leaf size of the

studied taxa of Cucurbitaceae. For the taxa names (see Table 1)

Y =2.99099+0.02824* x, r=0.79112

0 200 400 600 800

5

10

15

20

25

12

3

45

6

7

8

910

1112

13

1415

16

17

1819

20 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

petio

le le

ngth

(cm

)

Seed volume (mm )3

Fig. 2 Regression of seed volume (mm3) and petiole length of

the studied taxa of Cucurbitaceae. For the taxa names (see

Table 1)

Y =8.42824+0.06337* x, r=0.83566

0 200 400 600 800

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2

3

456

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1415

1617

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

leaf

e le

ngth

(bl

ade+

petio

le)

(cm

)

Seed volume (mm )3

Fig. 3 Regression of seed volume (mm3) and leaf length of the

studied taxa of Cucurbitaceae. For the taxa names (see Table 1)

0 5 10 15 20 25 300

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

12 3

4

5 67 8

9

10 11 12

13 14

15

16 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2526

27

Cor

olla

leng

th (

mm

)

Seed volume (mm )3

Y = 46.02449+13.50144* x,

r = 0.59108

Fig. 4 Regression of seed volume (mm3) and corolla length of

the studied taxa of Cucurbitaceae. For the taxa names (see

Table 1)


123


Fig. 5 Seed photographs of

the studied taxa. The scaleline 10 cm. For the taxa

names (see Table 1)

Fig. 6 Microphotographs showing different trichome types. For descriptions of the trichome types see the text


123


color, winged margin and obtuse apex. The seed

characters in Cucurbita are useful at species level

only. C. melo subsp. melo var. flexuosus ‘Firany’ is

easily distinguished by its small-sized seeds

(9.000 ± 0.196 9 4.28 ± 0.108 mm.).

According to Leishman and Westoby (1994), seed

size is positively correlated with growth-form size.

From the data of the studied taxa, there is a significant

correlation between seed size and growth parameters.

The growth parameters of the studied taxa included

leaf size, petiole length, leaf length and corolla length.

There are highly positive significant correlations

between seed volume and leaf size (r = 0.81831,

P B 0.001, Fig. 1), seed volume and petiole length

(r = 0.79112, P B 0.001, Fig. 2), seed volume and

leaf length (r = 0.83566, P B 0.001, Fig. 3), and seed

volume and corolla length (r = 0.59108, P B 0.001,

Fig. 4).

Trichome type

The differences in trichome types are more useful in

taxonomic work than their density (Cutler 1979). This

is because the length, size and density of the trichomes

are more liable to vary with environmental factors than

type (Metcalfe and Chalk 1972).

Among the studied taxa, eight trichome types are

distinguished (Fig. 6).

Type ‘‘A’’: eglandular, multicellular uniseriate,

soft, long with long cells and punctatus hair surface.

Type ‘‘B’’: eglandular, multicellular uniseriate,

with two raised basal cells, long, hard, thick walled

and granular hair surface.

Type ‘‘C’’: eglandular uniseriate, with multicellular

base, hard, thick with rugulose surface.

Type ‘‘D’’: eglandular, multicellular uniseriate,

short with 3–4 cells, hard, thick walled with

granular hair surface.

Type ‘‘E’’: glandular, multicellular, uniseriate base

and long multicellular neck, and multiseriate glo-

boid head, often with 6 cells, soft, thin-walled with

smooth surface.

Type ‘‘F’’: glandular, multicellular, uniseriate with

four cells base and 6–8 trunk cells, thin-walled and

smooth surface.

Type ‘‘G’’: glandular, multicellular uniseriate con-

sists of at least 20 cells, soft, thin-walled and smooth

surface.

Type ‘‘H’’: glandular, multicellular, uniseriate

neck and multiseriate globoid head, thin-walled

and smooth surface.

The distribution of the different types of tric-

homes on mature stems, leaves, petioles, flower and

fruits among the studied taxa is summarized in

Table 3.

Trichome type ‘‘A’’ is present in all taxa studied

except those of Cucurbita, where Type ‘‘E’’ is

recorded. Trichome type ‘‘F’’ is only present on the

flower of C. sativus L. var. sativus.

Stomata and epidermal cells

All the studied taxa have anomocytic stomata on the

upper and lower leaf surfaces. Four types of epidermal

cells have been identified:

1. Straight in the varieties of C. melo subsp. melo.

2. Straight or slightly curved in the varieties of

C. melo subsp. melo var. aegyptiaca, C. melo

subsp. melo var. dudaim, C. melo subsp. melo var.

flexuosus and C. melo subsp. agrostis var. chate

‘Aggour’.

3. Folded in the varieties of Cucurbita and C. sativus

var. sativus.

4. Curved in the upper and folded in the lower

surface of L. aegyptiaca.

Leaves

Leaves mostly simple, palmately veined and lobed.

C. sativus has triangular, ovate often 3-lobed

with a pointed apex, and rounded ovate- reniform

with obtuse apex in C. melo and angled in

L. aegyptiaca.

Keys

Key 1

In the following key, vegetative, fruit and seed

characters are used. The quantitative characters are

omitted except for character 6 (the depth of the leaf

basal sinus). This character is very important for

identification at the level of cultivars (see the key;

led 18).


123



123


Key 2 (confirmatory)

The following key uses fruit and seed characters, and

vegetative and flower characters are omitted except

character 6 (depth of leaf basal sinus). The fruit and

seed characters can be used to identify most of the

Egyptian cultivars.


123


Table 3 Trichomes types and epidermal cells characters among the studied taxa

Taxon Trichomes Epidermal cell

Stem Petiole Leaves Flower Fruit

Stalk Fruit

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Melo’ B, D C, D C, D A, D, G, H D – Straight

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Shahd’ B, D C, D B, C, D A, D, G, H D – Straight

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Santawi’ A, B, D B, D, H B, D A, D, G, H D – Straight

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Santawi

Taweel’

A, B, D B, D, H B, D A, D, G, H D – Straight

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Senani’ A, B, D B, C, D B, D A, D, G, H D – Straight

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Ananas

Kheshen’

B, C, D B, C, D B, C, D A, D, G, H D – Straight

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Ananas

Naiem’

C, D, B B, C, D B, C, D A, D, G, H D – Straight

C. melo L. subsp. melo ‘Mangawi’ B, D B, C, D B, D A, D, G, H D – Straight

C. melo L. subsp. melo var.

aegyptiaca Sickenb. ‘Mansouri’

B, C, D B, C, D B, C, D A, D, G, H – – Straight or slightly

curved

C. melo L. subsp. melo. var.

aegyptiaca Sickenb.

B, C, D C, D B, C, D A, D, G, H – – Straight or slightly

curved


dudaim (L.) Naudin ‘Waraqi’

B, C, D B, C, D B, C, D A, D, G, H – – Straight or slightly

curved

C. melo L. subsp. agrestis(Naudin) Pangalo var. dudaim(L.) Naudin ‘Bassusi’

C, D C, D B, D A, D, G, H – – Straight or slightly

curved

C. melo L. subsp. agrestis(Naudin) Pangalo var. dudaim(L.) Naudin ‘Kisaan El-Assal’

C, D C, D B, D A, D, G, H – – Straight or slightly

curved

C. melo L. subsp. agrestis(Naudin) Pangalo var. dudaim(L.) Naudin ‘Qatta Saidi’

B, C, D B, C, D B, D A, D, G, H D – Straight or slightly

curved


flexuosus (L.) Naudin ‘Firany’

B, C, D B, C, D B, D A, B, D, G, H A, D A, D Straight or slightly

curved


flexuosus (L.) Naudin ‘Khadra’

B, C, D B, C, D B, D A, B, D, G, H D D Straight or slightly

curved


flexuosus (L.) Naudin ‘Beida’

B, C, D B, C, D B, D A, B, D, G, H D D Straight or slightly

curved

C. melo L. subsp. agrestis(Naudin) Pangalo var. chate(Hasselq.) Sageret ‘Aggour’

A, B, D A, B, D B, D A, D, G, H D – Straight or slightly

curved

C. sativus L. var. sativus C, D, H C, D, H B, C, D A, D, F, H D D Folded

C. maxima Duchesne ex Lam.

‘Etampes Pumpkin’ (Abied)

C, D C, D B, C, D B, D, E, H – – Folded

C. maxima Duchesne ex Lam.

‘Spanish Pumpkin’ (Ahmar)

C, D C, D B, C, D B, D, E, H – – Folded

C. moschata Duchesne ex Lam.

‘Napple Squash’

B, D B, D D B, D, E, H – – Folded

C. moschata Duchesne ex

Lam.‘Long Neapolitan Squash’

B, D B, D D B, D, E, H – – Folded

C. pepo var. ovifera (L.) Alef.

‘Eskandarani’

C, D C, D B, C, D B, D, E, H, G C, D D Folded


123


From the above keys, it can be concluded that

vegetative, flower and fruit charters are not enough for

separating all the studied taxa. However, depth of leaf

basal sinus and seed characters are very important in

the identification of the varieties and cultivars.

Based on a limited sampling of the morphological

characters and cultivars of Cucurbitaceae some sig-

nificant patterns of variation are clear. They can be

arranged according to their usefulness for identifica-

tions as follows: fruit characters, seed characters,

trichome type and epidermal cell type.

Acknowledgments The authors dedicate this work to the late

Prof. Dr. M. N. El-Hadidi, Botany Department, Cairo

University, who initiated this work. We thank Prof. Dr.

Hasnaa Hosni, Professor of Plant taxonomy in Botany

Department, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt for

reviewing through the manuscript and making valuable

suggestions. Special thanks to Prof. Dr. J. H. Kirkbride, Jr.,

USDA-ARS, US National Arboretum, Floral and Nursery Plants

Research Unit, 3501 New York Avenue NE, Washington, DC

20002-1958 USA for his valuable suggestions and comments on

the manuscript. Valuable references are provided by Prof. Dr.

De Wilde at National Herbarium Nederland, Universiteit Leiden

Branch, P.O. Box 9514, NL-2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands.

Appendix

See Tables 2 and 3, Figs. 5 and 6.

*Character list

#1. Stem surface/ 1. Hispid/ 2. Hirsute/ 3.

Roughish/ 4. Scabrous/

#2. Tendril/ 1. Simple/ 2. Multified/

#3. Leaf size/ 1. \15 9 15 cm / 2. More than

15*15 cm/

#4. Leaf apex/ 1. Acute/ 2. Obtuse/ 3. Acuminate/

#5. Leaf margin/ 1. Dentate/ 2. Microdentate/

#6. Depth of leaf basal sinus/ 1. \8 mm/ 2. More

than 8 mm/

#7. Petiole length/ 1.\12 cm/ 2. More than 12 cm/

#8. Leaf epidermal cells/ 1. Straight/ 2. Straight or

slightly curved/ 3. Curved upper folded lower/

4. Folded/

#9. Flower colour/ 1. Yellow/ 2. Orange/

#10. Flower pedicel/ 1.\15 mm long/ 2. More than

15 mm long/

#11. Receptacle length/ 1.\7 mm/ 2. More than 7 mm

#12. Calyx length/ 1. \10 mm/ 2. 10–25 mm/ 3.

More than 25 mm/

#13. Corolla lobe apex/ 1. Obtuse/ 2. Acute/

#14. Corolla length/ 1. \15 mm/ 2. 15–30 mm/ 3.

40–100 mm/ 4. More than 100 mm/

#15. Corolla tube/ 1. Less than half the length of

corolla/ 2. More than half the length of corolla/

#16. Fruit shape/ 1. Globoid/ 2. Elongate/

#17. Fruit skin/ 1. Smooth/ 2. Smooth–rough/ 3.

Rough-netted/

#18. Fruit surface/ 1. Glabrous/ 2. Hairy/

#19. Fruit ends/ 1. Flat at both ends/ 2. Tapering at

both ends/ 3. Tapering one end/

#20. Fruit colour/ 1. Orange-reddish/ 2. Yellow/ 3.

Greenish/

#21. Fruit furrows/ 1. Present/ 2. Absent/

#22. Fruit odour/ 1. Strong melon/ 2. Melon odour/

3. Musk odour/ 4. Chat-cucumber odour/

#23. Fruit flesh-color/ 1. Orange–yellow/ 2. White–

greenish/

#24. Fruit central cavity/ 1. Present/ 2. Absent/

#25. Fruit width/ 1.\12 cm/ 2. More than 12 cm/

#26. Seed shape/ 1. Ovate/ 2. Oblong–ovate/

Table 3 continued

Taxon Trichomes Epidermal cell

Stem Petiole Leaves Flower Fruit

Stalk Fruit


‘Baladi Khadra’.



‘Baladi Beida’


L. aegyptiaca Mill. B B, D D, H A, B, D, G B – Curved upper/

folded lower

– Absent


123


#27. Seed colour/ 1. Whitish/ 2. Yellowish or

darker/ 3. Black/

#28. Seed base/ 1. Obtuse/ 2. Tapering/

#29. Seed apex/ 1. Tapering/ 2. Truncate/ 3.

Truncate–oblique/ 4. Obtuse/

#30. Seed surface/ 1. Smooth/ 2. Dusty {What does

this mean?}/

#31. Seed rim/ 1. Rimless/ 2. Single rim/ 3. Double

rim/

#32. Seed margin/ 1. Smooth/ 2. Rough/ 3. Wavy/ 4.

Winged/

#33. Seed length/ 1.\15 mm/ 2. More than 15 mm/

#34. Seed width/ 1. \5 mm/ 2. 5–8 mm/ 3. More

than 8 mm/

#35. Seed thickness/ 1.\2 mm/ 2. 2–3 mm/ 3. More

than 3 mm/

#36. Seed weight (/seed)/ 1. \100 mg/ 2.

100–200 mg/ 3. More than 200 mg/

#37. Seed (length 9 width 9 thickness)/ 1. \100/

2. 100–300/ 3. 300–500/ 4. More than 500/

References

Alefeld F (1866) Landwirtschaftliche Flora. Wiegandt und

Hempel, Berlin

Boulos L (2000) Flora of Egypt, vol 2. Al Hadara, Cairo,

pp 134–143

Castetter EF (1925) Horticultural groups of cucurbits. Proc Am

Soc Hort Sci 22:338–340

Cogniaux A, Harms H (1924) Cucurbitaceae. Cucurbiteae–Cu-

cumerimae. In: Engler, Das Pflanzenreich 88(IV.275.II):

1–246

Coleman CO, Lowry JK, Macfarlane T (2010) DELTA for

beginners: an introduction into the taxonomy software

package DELTA. ZooKeys 45:1–75

Cutler DF (1979) The scanning electron microscope in sys-

tematic plant anatomy. In: Metcalfe CR, Chalk L (eds)

Anatomy of the dicotyledons, vol 1, 2nd edn. Clarendon

Press, Oxford, p 91

Dallwitz MJ (2009) Overview of the DELTA system.

http://delta-intkey.com/www/overview.htm

Dallwitz MJ, Paine TA, Zurcher EJ (2000) User’s guide to the

DELTA system: a general system for processing taxo-

nomic descriptions, 4.12th edn. CSIRO Division of Ento-

mology, Canberra

Dallwitz MJ, Paine TA, Zurcher EJ (2002) Interactive identifi-

cation using the internet. In: Saarenmaa H, Nielsen ES

(eds) Towards a global biological information infrastruc-

ture—challenges, opportunities, synergies, and the role of

entomology. European Environment Agency technical

report 70. EEA, Copenhagen, pp 23–33

Decker DS (1988) Origin(s), evolution, and systematics of

Cucurbita pepo (Cucurbitaceae). Econ Bot 42:4–15

Goff ES (1888) Report of the horticulturist. N Y St Agric Exp

Stat Ann Rep 6:76–306

Hassib M (1938) Cucurbitaceae in Egypt. Faculty of Science,

Fouad 1 University, Cairo, Egypt. Publ. 3. Imp. F. E. Noury

& Fils, p 173

Heneidaq S (2008) Taxonomic revision of wild species of Cu-

curbitaceae in Egypt. Taeckholmia 28:21–55

Jeffrey C (1980) A review of the Cucurbitaceae. Bot J Linn Soc

81:233–247

Jeffrey C (1990) An outline classification of the Cucurbitaceae.

In: Bates DM, Robinson RW, Jeffrey C (eds) Biology and

utilization of the Cucurbitaceae. Cornell University Press,

Ithaca, pp 449–463

Jeffrey C (2001) Cucurbitaceae. In: Hanelt P, Institute of Plant

Genetics and Crop Plant Research (eds) Mansfeld’s ency-

clopedia of agricultural and horticultural crops, vol 3.

Springer, Berlin, pp 1510–1557

Kirkbride JH (1993) Biosystematic monograph of the genus

Cucumis (Cucurbitaceae). Parkay, Boone, p 159

Kurz S (1877) Contributions towards a knowledge of the Bur-

mese flora, Cucurbitaceae. J Asia Soc Bengal 46(2):47–58

Leishman MR, Westoby M (1994) Hypotheses on seed size:

tests using the semiarid flora of western New South Wales,

Australia. Am Nat 143:890–906

Linnaeus C (1753) Species Plantarum. Haunae

Metcalfe CR, Chalk L (1972) Anatomy of the dicotyledons, vol

1. Clarendon Press, Oxford

Montasir AM, Hassib M (1956) Manual flora of Egypt. I. Im-

primerie Misr, SAE

Munger HM, Robinson RW (1991) Nomenclature of Cucumismelo L. Cucurbit Genet Co-op Rep 14:43

Naudin C (1856) Nouvelles recherches sur les caracteres spe-

cifiques et les varietes des plantes du genre Cucurbita. Ann

Sci Nat Bot IV 6:5–73

Naudin C (1859) Essaia d’une monographie des especes et des

variet es du genre Cucumis. Ann Sci Natl Bot ser 4 11:5–87

Nesom GL (2011) Toward consistency of taxonomic rank in

wild/domesticated Cucurbitaceae. Phytoneuron 13:1–33

Pankhurst RJ (1991) Practical taxonomic computing. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge

Paris HS (1986) A proposed subspecific classification for

Cucurbita pepo. Phytologia 61:133–138

Pitrat M, Hanelt P, Hammer K (2000) Some comments on

infraspecific classification of cultivars of Cucumis melo.

Acta Hort 510:29–36

Rabei S (2011) A morphological, anatomical and taxonomic

study of Umbelliferae in Egypt. LAP Lambert, Koln

Rabei S, El-Gazzar A (2007) Computer-generated keys to spe-

cies of Hyptis s.l. (Labiatae). Taeckholmia 27:11–39

Rizk RMH (2001) Cytotaxonomic studies on the Egyptian taxa

of Cucurbitaceae. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of

Botany, Faculty of Science at Damietta, Mansoura Uni-

versity, Egypt

Simpson M (2010) Plant systematics, 2nd edn. Academic Press,

London, pp 341–344

Stearn WT (1973) Botanical Latin. David & Charles, Newton

Abbott

Tackholm V (1974) Students’ flora of Egypt, 2nd edn. Cairo

University, Cairo, pp 372–376

Willdenow CL (1805) Species Plantarum, vol 4, 4th edn. Imp-

ensis G. C. Nauk, Berlin


123


http://delta-intkey.com/www/overview.htm

Keys for and morphological character variation in some Egyptian cultivars of Cucurbitaceae

Documents

Transcript of Keys for and morphological character variation in some Egyptian cultivars of Cucurbitaceae