Cucurbit Genetics Cooperative Report 3:66-67 (article 37) 1980
D. L. Visser and A. P. M. den Nijs
Institute for Horticultural Plant Breeding (IVT), Wageningen, The Netherlands
A Cucumis species collection has been built up at our institute in the past three years to provide a basis for the species crossing program. At this time our collection consists of 118 examined accessions of 13 species. Except for C. melo L. and C. sativus L., nearly all the material originates, as far as we know, from the African continent. One of the exceptions is a feral accession of C. dipsaceus Spach. Which was collected at Curacao. About 30% of our collection was obtained from the USDA PI collections at Experiment (GA, USA) and Ames (IA, USA), and about as many came from a number of botanical gardens. The remaining part resulted from exchanges with institutes, universities, or research workers. Until now, the collection was gathered without collecting trips. Because of this, we generally lack specific data on the origin of the material or how it was maintained. As it is indispensable for our taxonomical research and species crossing program to dispose of diversity within a species, we like to have accessions of different origin. Among nine accessions of C. africanus L. f., only three PI numbers are of known origin (3). It is not known from how many sources the other six accessions originate.
The correct classification of Cucumis species is a recurring nightmare to anyone working with this material (see e.g. 3). It is, therefore, not remarkable that many samples are misclassified. For our collection, every seed sample is first grown in the glasshouse to check its botanical name and to evaluate the special characters of the accession. ONly thereafter is the accession introduced into the collection. Each sample is documented by a herbarium sheet with seedling, young and older leaves, shoot and flowers. Individual mature fruits are photographed. Mature fruits of each species are preserved in a spirit collection, whereas those of deviating accessions are stored separately. It is not always possible to identify an accession in one season, and in doubt of purity, we like to see offspring. The value of these observations is illustrated by the fact that 30% of all samples needs to be reclassified.
Only a species such as C. metuliferus Naud. is sufficiently distinct to prevent misclassification. In all the other species misclassifications occur. Renamed accessions have been included in Table 1 as: ‘formerly…’ The wild cucumber with small, sub-globose to ellipsoidal bitter fruits is tested as a variety of C. sativus L. based on the restricted description of Gabaew (2). The reason for this is that we agree with e.g. Robinson and Kowalewski (6), That on the basis of crossability, C. hardwickii Royle belongs within the species C. sativus L. and is sufficiently distinct as a subspecies. The C. sativus accessions in the tables are all non-cultivated, small fruit specimens which sometimes run wild in South Asia. Cultivars are not included in this list, as is true for melons. Since there is no good dividing line between wild, feral, and cultivated melons, the feral and wild forms have been listed as just C. melo L. The classification C. melo var. agrestis Naud. (4) was only used for specimens with small (up to 6 cm long) dark green fruits that do not change color at maturity. Because we do not have clarity as yet about the taxonomic status of the species C. callous (Rottl.) Cogn., C. trignonus Roxb., and C. prophetarum L., these three taxa have not yet been included in the table (3).
Seed is increased by selfs and crosses through hand pollination on three plants in an insect-proof glasshouse. Seed from the resulting is combined and stored in one sample.
Many accessions have now been tested for their resistance against cucumber green mottle virus (CGMV) black root rot (Phomopsis sclerotioides) and root knot nematodes (Meloidogyne incognita acrita and M. javanica). The results are summarized in Table2. All tested accessions of C. africanus L. f. and C. anguria L. are resistant to CGMV. The results of C. figarei Naud. are not yet clear and within C. ficifolius A. Rich., we found one out of two accessions resistant. All accessions of the other species are susceptible. For black root rot, no resistance was observed in any of the tested material. The level of resistance to nematodes varies within the species. The highest level of resistance has been found in C. metuliferus Naud., but a number of accession within this species have partial resistance. None proved absolutely resistant. Fassuliotis (1) and Pitrat and Dumas de Vaulx (5) found resistance in C. metuliferus. The level of resistance in most accessions of C. africanus L.f. is rather high, as it is in C. ficifolius A. Rich. and C. heptadactylus Naud.
Powdery mildew resistance was evaluated following natural infestation at the end of the growing season. There appears to be a wealth of resistance to powdery mildew in the wild material. Our results largely concur with the observations of Pitrat and Dumas de Vaulx (5). Their results indicated C. anguria is susceptible whereas our five tested accessions of this species appear resistant.
For exchange, seed sample numbers have been included in Table 1 after the genebank number. As the wild species of the PI collections are readily available, these accessions have not been included in this list.
Table 1. Review of the Cucumis species collection at the IVT.
Botanical name |
Gene bank no. |
Seed sample no. |
Source |
Country of origin |
Remarks (concerning fruits or names) |
| Cucumis africanus L. f. | 0162 | C77152 | Naaldwijk1 – The Netherlands | – | segregating, contam. with C. dipsaceus |
| Cucumis africanus L. f. | 0181 | C78341 | Copenhagen – Denmark | – | |
| Cucumis africanus L. f. | 0330 | C78339 | Coimbra – Portugal | – | formerly C. anguria |
| Cucumis africanus L. f. | 1773 | C78343 | Copenhagen – Denmark | – | formerly C. anguria |
| Cucumis africanus L. f. | 1780 | C78342 | Basel – Switzerland | – | |
| Cucumis africanus L. f. | 1969 | C79229 | Ege Univ. Izmir – Turkey | – | |
| C. anguria L. | 0114 | C79220 | Burpee – USA | USA | cultivated |
| C. anguria L. | 0198 | C78338 | Pisa – Italy | – | formerly C. anguria longipes |
| C. anguria L. | 1735 | C78375 | Vavilov Leningrad2 – USSR | Africa | formerly C. myriocarpus |
| C. anguria L. | 1758 | C78340 | Kew – England | – | |
| C. anguria L. | 1970 | C79232 | Annamalai Univ. – India | – | segregating slightly |
| C. anguria L. | 1978 | C79237 | Liverpool – England | – | |
| C. anguria var. longipes A. Meeuse | 1736 | C78363 | Vavilov Leningrad2 – USSR | Africa | formerly C. prophetarum |
| C. anguria var. longipes A. Meeuse | 1784 | C79239 | Kiev – USSR | – | segregating, some C. anguriatypes formerly C. myriocarpus fruit fully round, small |
| C. anguria var. longipes A. Meeuse | 1827 | C79238 | R. Lower, NCSU – USA | – | |
| C. dipsaceus Spach. | 0163 | C79260 | Naaldwijk1 – The Netherlands | – | |
| C. dipsaceus Spach. | 1728 | C78206 | IVT – collection | Curacao | |
| C. dipsaceus Spach. | 1733 | C79262 | Vavilov Leningrad2 – USSR | Africa | |
| C. dipsaceus Spach. | 1774 | Copenhagen – Denmark | – | ||
| C. dipsaceus Spach. | 1783 | C79263 | Kiev – USSR | – | formerly C. anguria |
| C. dipsaceus Spach. | 1983 | C79264 | Montfavet3 – France | Ethiopia | |
| C. ficifolius A. Rich. | 1828 | C79267 | R. Lower, NCSU – USA | – | |
| C. figarei Naud. | 1706 | C77168 | Vavilov Leningrad2 – USSR | Sudan | formerly C. callosus |
| C. melo L. | 1754 | C78372 | Leiden – The Netherlands | Vilmorin | formerly C. species |
| C. melo L. | 1755 | Leiden – The Netherlands | Vilmorin | formerly C. species | |
| C. melo L. | 1766 | C78216 | Osm. Univ. Hyderabad – India | – | formerly C. sativus ( Indian Cucumber) |
| C. melo L. | 1767 | C78215 | Osm. Univ. Hyderabad – India | – | formerly C. sativus |
| C. melo L. | 1817 | C79280 | Gatersleben4 – DDR | – | formerly C. melo var. agrestis |
| C. melo L. | 1819 | C79281 | Gatersleben4 – DDR | W. Africa | formerly C. melo var. agrestis |
| C. melo L. | 1820 | C79282 | Gatersleben4 – DDR | S. Africa | formerly C. melo var. agrestis |
| C. melo var. agrestis Naud. | 1165 | C78349 | IVT – collection | N. Nigeria | |
| C. melo var. agrestis Naud | 1743 | C78277 | – Turkey | – | formerly C. callosus |
| C. melo var. agrestis Naud | 1756 | C78373 | IVT – collection | Senegal | formerly C. species |
| C. melo var. agrestis Naud | 1757 | C78344 | Canberra – Australia | Queensland | formerly C. anguria |
| C. melo var. agrestis Naud | 1777 | Copenhagen – Denmark | – | ||
| C. melo var. agrestis Naud | 1818 | C79283 | Gatersleben4 – DDR | – | |
| C. melo var. agrestis Naud | 1821 | C79284 | Gatersleben4 – DDR | Afghanistan | |
| C. melo var. agrestis Naud | 1987 | C79285 | Montfavet3 – France | Togo | formerly C. prophetarum |
| C. metuliferus Naud | 0164 | C77165 | Naaldwijk1 – The Netherlands | – | |
| C. metuliferus Naud | 0256 | Besancon – France | – | ||
| C. metuliferus Naud | 1734 | C78351 | Vavilov Leningrad2 – USSR | Africa | |
| C. metuliferus Naud | 1747 | C77352 | Gatersleben4 – DDR | – | |
| C. metuliferus Naud | 1768 | C78353 | Dep. Pl. Biol. Birmingham – England | – | |
| C. metuliferus Naud | 1771 | Dr. Provvidenti, Geneva – USA | – | ||
| C. metuliferus Naud | 1775 | Copenhagen – Denmark | – | ||
| C. metuliferus Naud | 1822 | C79289 | Frankfurt – BRD | – | |
| C. metuliferus Naud. | 1825 | C79290 | R. Lower, NCSU – USA | – | |
| C. metuliferus Naud | 1833 | C70291 | Salisbury – Zimbabwe | – | |
| C. metuliferus Naud | 1836 | C78318 | Copenhagen – Denmark | – | |
| C. metuliferus Naud | 1837 | C79297 | Mr. Howel – England | – | |
| C. metuliferus Naud | 1985 | C79298 | Montfavet3 – France | – | |
| C. metuliferus Naud | 1994 | C79299 | Mr. Mackiewicz – Poland | local market Georgia | |
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 0165 | Naaldwijk1 – The Netherlands | – | ||
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 0182 | C78354 | Copenhagen – Denmark | – | |
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 0184 | Kew – England | – | ||
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 0202 | C78355 | Poznan – Poland | – | |
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 0203 | C78356 | Cluy – Romania | – | |
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 0258 | C78381 | Besancon – France | – | formerly C. prophetarum |
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 0335 | Coimbra – Portugal | – | ||
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 1737 | Lyon – France | – | formerly C. prophetarum | |
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 1742 | Lodz – Poland | – | ||
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 1750 | Gatersleben4 – DDR | – | ||
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 1763 | Gottingen – BRD | – | ||
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 1776 | C78226 | Copenhagen – Denmark | – | |
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 1778 | Kosice – CSSR | – | ||
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 1779 | C78347 | Kosice – CSSR | – | formerly C. dipsaceus |
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 1838 | Debrecen – Hungary | – | ||
| C. myriocarpus Naud | 1986 | Montfavet2 – France | – | ||
| C. sativus L. | 1592 | A68040 | IVT- collection | Egypt | |
| C. sativus L. | 1713 | C77169 | Mr. Kohli – India | Himalaya | |
| C. sativus L. | 1745 | C79387 | Dr. de Ruiter, The Netherlands | India | formerly C. sativus var. hardwickii |
| C. sativus L. | 1759 | C79321 | Mr. Kohli – India | – | formerly C. sativus var. hardwickii |
| C. sativus L. | 1772 | C79305 | IVT collection | Suriname | |
| C. sativus L. | 1829 | C79306 | R. Lower, NCSU-USA | – | PI 271337, small fruit selection |
| C. sativus L. | 1830 | C79307 | R. Lower, NCSU-USA | – | PI 271338, large fruit sel., segregating |
| C. sativus L. | 1964 | C79315 | Pretoria – South Africa | – | |
| C. sativus var. hardwickii Alef. | 1953 | C79389 | India | – | formerly C. species |
| C. sativus var. hardwickii Alef. | 1811 | C79317 | Vavilov Leningrad2 – USSR | India | long fruits |
| C. sativus var. hardwickii Alef. | 1823 | C79318 | R. Lower, NCSU-USA | – | |
| C. sativus var. hardwickii Alef. | 1963 | C78384 | Pretoria – South Africa | – | variety “Hanzil” |
| C. sativus var. sikkimensis Hook. | 0368 | C78369 | IARI – India | – | |
| C. sativus var. sikkimensis Hook. | 1764 | C78370 | Liverpool – England | – | fruit size segregating slightly |
| C. sativus var. sikkimensis Hook. | 1977 | C79324 | Liverpool – England | – | fruit size segregating slightly |
| C. sativus var. squamosus Gab. | 1812 | C78383 | Vavilov Leningrad2 – USSR | India | var. “Khira Cheshuichatyi” |
Only a place-name as source means the Botanical Garden of that town.
1 Glasshouse Crops Research and Experimental; Station.
2 Vavilov All Union Institute of Plant Industry.
3 Station d’Amelioration des Plantes Maraicheres.
4 Zentralinstitut fur Genetik and Kulturpflanzenforschung.
Table 2. Results of disease resistance tests.
Number of accessions |
|||||||||||
Number of accessions |
# of accessions
|
# of accessions
|
# of accessions
|
# of accessions
|
|||||||
Species |
CSC |
R |
S |
S |
0/1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
| Cucumis africanus L.f. | 9 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 5 | |||||
| C. anguria L. var. anguria | 8 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | |||||
| C. anguria var. longipes A. Meeuse | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| C. dipsaceus Spach. | 8 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 6 | |||||
| C. ficifolius A. Rich. | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| C. figarei Naud. | 2 | (1) | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| C. heptadactylus Naud. | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| C. meeusii C. Jeffrey | 1 | 1 | (1) | 1 | |||||||
| C. melo L. | 12 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |||||
| C. melo var. agrestis Naud. | 10 | 3 | 6 | (2) | 1 | 7 | |||||
| C metuliferus Naud. | 16 | 12 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 2 | |||
| C. myriocarpus Naud. | 18 | 11 | 11 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 1 | |||
| C. sativus L. | 11 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||||||
| C. sativus var. hardwickii Alef. | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |||||
| C. sativus var. sikkimensis Hook. | 5 | 4 | 3 | ||||||||
| C. sativus var. squamosus Gab. | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| C. zeyheri Sond. | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |||||||
CSC: Cucumis species collection; CGMV: Cucumis green mottle mosaic virus, R: resistant, S: susceptible; BRR: black root rot, number of tested accessions; Nematodes: 0/1-highly resistant, 3-highly susceptible; Powdery Mildew: 0-no mildew, 2-heavy sporulation; ( ): limited information.
Literature Cited
- Brown, G. B., J. R. Deakin and M. B. Wood. 1969. Identification of Cucumis species by paper chromatography of flavanoids. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 94:231-234.
- Chakravarthy, H. L. 1959. Monograph on Indian Cucurbitaceae – Taxonomy and distribution. Records of the Botanical Survey of India 17: 98-112.
- Darlington, C. D. and A. P. Wylie. 1955. Chromosome atlas of flowering plants. Allen and Unwin Ltd., London.
- Gamble, J. S. 1923. Flora of the presidency of Madras. Adlard & Son Ltd., London, Vol. I, 377 pp.
- Hooker, J. D. 1879. Flora of British India. L. Reeve & Co. Ltd., U.K., Vol. II: 619-620.
- Naudin, C. 1859. Revue des Cucurbitaces cultivees au Museum en. Ann. Sci. Nat. Ser. 4 Bot. 12: 79-164.
- Robinson, R. W. and E. Kowalewski. 1978. Interspecific hybridization of Cucumis. Cucurbit Genetics Coop. Rpt. 1:40.
- Roy, R. P. 1972. Cytogenetical investigations in the Cucurbitaceae. USDA PL-480 Res. Project (Final Report). Patna Univ. 263 pp.
- Sambandam, C. N.and S. Chelliah. 1972. Scheme for the evaluation of cantaloupe and muskmelon varieties for the resistance to the fruit fly ( Dacus cucurbitae C.). USDA PL-480 Res. Project. Annamalai Univ. 67 pp.
- Singh, A. K. And R. P. Roy. 1973. Karyological studies in Cucumis. Caryologia 27: 153-160.
- Vavilov, N. I. 1931. Mexico and Central America as the principal centres of origin of cultivated plants of the New World. Bull. Appli. Bot. and Pl. Breed. 16: 135-199.
- Watt, G. 1898. Dictionary of Economic Products of India. Vol. II: 626. Periodical experts, New Delhi, India.