Hamlin

Synonyms

Norris (sec. Cottin 2002)

Cultivar or taxon

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

Origin

Hodgson (1967) noted that: "The Hamlin variety originated as a chance seedling in an orchard near Glenwood, Florida, which was planted in 1879, and was named for the owner, A. G. Hamlin, at the time its value was recognized some years later. It came into prominence following the great Florida freeze of 1894-95 as a rival of Parson, the only other variety of similar early maturity, and has gradually replaced it."

The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone 1-4-1): "Is an old- line selection entered into the budwood program by Ward’s Nursery in Avon Park....Origin: Florida, chance seedling near Glenwood, 1879. "

The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) additionally provided the following notes on the cultivar (clone 8-1-4/8-1-5): " Parent tree entered into the program from the Story Property in Winter Garden in 1953."

Description

Tree moderately vigorous, medium-large, productive, and more cold-tolerant than most (Hodgson 1967). Crown compact or dense, not weeping. First-year twig surface glabrous; thorns straight; prickles absent or not persistent. Petiole glabrous, length short or medium; wings narrow, adjoining the blade. Leaflets one, margin bluntly toothed, shade leaflet blades flat or weakly conduplicate, sun leaflet blades flat, weakly or strongly conduplicate. Scent of crushed leaflets sweetly orange-like. Fruit as broad as long or longer than broad; rind yellow (7-10), yellow-orange (11), orange (12), or red-orange (13); rind texture slightly rough (4-5); firmness leathery; navel absent; flesh orange; taste acidic-sweet.

Hodgson (1967) provided the following additional notes on the fruit:

"Fruit medium-small, globose to slightly oblate; sometimes with low radially furrowed collar and faint areolar ring; seeds very few or none. Well-colored at maturity (one of the best in Florida). Rind thin, with smooth, finely pitted surface. Flesh well-colored; tender, juicy, lacking in acid; flavor sweet. One of the earliest to mature.

In semitropical climates characterized by high heat and humidity, this variety produces fruit of satisfactory size for marketing fresh, although the eating quality is generally somewhat disappointing. In arid, subtropical climates, fruit size is commonly smaller than desirable though the quality may be satisfactory."

The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following additional notes on the fruit: "Description: Fruit medium-small, seeds few to none, rind thin, smooth, juicy, poor color."

Notes

Hamlin accounted for 47.0% of sweet orange propagations and 41.8% of all citrus nursery propagations in Florida in 2009. It was the most frequently propagated variety in Florida from 2004 to 2009 (Chiefland Budwood Facility 2009).

The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) provided the following additional notes on the cultivar (clone 1-4-1): "This was the first Hamlin selection entered into the budwood parent tree program in 1953 and still remains the most widely propagated early orange. It has typical Hamlin traits and excellent yields."

The Chiefland Budwood Facility (2010) additionally provided the following additional notes on the cultivar (clone 8-1-4/8-1-5): "A top yielding clone in the Budwood Foundation Grove. This clone has typical Hamlin traits and excellent yields."

References

Bayer, R.J., D.J. Mabberley, C. Morton, C.H. Miller, I.K. Sharma, B.E. Pfeil, S. Rich, R. Hitchcock, and S. Sykes. 2009. A molecular phylogeny of the orange subfamily (Rutaceae: Aurantioideae) using nine cpDNA sequences. American Journal of Botany 96: 668–685.

Chiefland Budwood Facility. 2009. 2009 Annual report July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009. Bureau of Citrus Budwood Registration, Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Winter Haven.

Cottin, R. 2002. Citrus of the World: A citrus directory. Version 2.0. France: SRA INRA-CIRAD.

Hodgson, R.W. 1967. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry, rev. University of California Press. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html.

Mabberley, D.J. 1997. A classification for edible Citrus (Rutaceae). Telopea 7: 167–172.

Swingle, W.T. and P.C. Reece. 1967. The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives. In: Reuther, W., H.J. Webber, and L.D. Batchelor (eds.). The Citrus industry. Ed. 2. Vol. I. University of California, Riverside. http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter3.html.

Tanaka, T. 1936. The taxonomy and nomenclature of Rutaceae-Aurantioideae. Blumea 2: 101-110.

Resources

Search for this cultivar in NCBI Entrez or NCBI Nucleotide

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