Talk:Clementine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michjet.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources

It seems part of this article was taken from here: http://www.producepete.com/shows/clementines.html That page also seems to contain more information.

aripollak 22:34, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)

No seeds?

I just bought some clementines, about 20 of them, and about 2 had a seed in them. The seed was about 1cm in length.

I agree - clementines do have seeds. Otherwise I wonder how they reproduce.

So they do? I thought the very definition of a fruit is they have seeds. I am going to update the article to say "very few"

Plants can be grown asexually from cuttings, graftings, cell cultures, etc. With most modern fruit bearing plants they have been hybridized with other closely related species with a different chromosome number to give the resultant plant an odd pairing of chromosomes, rendering it sterile. There can be some things that can happen to reverse the sterility, but thats outside the scope of this question. As noted in the article sometimes additional crossbreeding can reintroduce traits that were bred out. The typical clementine is seedless, though seeded versions can exist. also the structure is analogous to a fruit, and it just happens to be sterile and without seeds. Would you call a chicken egg something else because there is no embryo inside of it? -ZTS

Not only can plants be grown asexually, essentially all fruit trees are essentially always grown asexually by grafting. Different "varieties" of fruit, are really just different members of the same species, which have been cloned. - David Roundy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.152.53 (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

I think it qualifies as seedless, in the general usage of the term, much as seedless watermelons do have seeds, but they are small and edible. Since the average clementine doesn't have seeds, I think that the statement that they have very few seeds is a bit misleading.

agreed, the fruit is typically seedless. -ZTS

No proof

From my research, there is no proof that the French monk developed the clementine. He may have simply found it and spread it to Europe. There are claims that it originated in China. Perhaps the wording of this article should be changed.

Mothperson 20:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, a Clementine is the same thing as a Mikan. And Mikans came from japan. Fresheneesz 20:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This page [1] says that a mikan is a mandarin (Citrus reticulata). The clementine is listed on that page as a cultivar. Given that "clementines are becoming the most important commercial mandarin variety" (see Mandarin orange#Varieties and characteristics, which also says that some mandarin varieties are crosses with other citrus), I suspect that the use of mikan for clementine is essentially a substitution of the general for the more specific. Therefore, it is not this page (clementine) that mikan should be merged with, but rather the mandarin orange page. See also [2], which is a lot less fuzzy than Wikipedia's mandarin, clementine, and mikan articles. -- Justinbb 03:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Popularity

Anyone have a sourse on the popularity of Clementines? I knew that they only renctly became widely available in the U. S., but as near as I can tell they're very popular, in which case mention of that should probably be made. But I don't have any sourse besides my own observations. Snowboardpunk

I live in Kentucky, and I can tell you, people are nuts for these things, due to their sweet taste and easy peeling. Something in the article should be written about this fact and properly cited. Veracious Rey t • c • r 03:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, However there is nothing examplifying the James Saunt story. Does anyone has a referrence?

My bad, did not made till the end of the page on the first read... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.67.65.34 (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Nectar

To me, it seems the word nectar and juice is mixed up here. I think the word juice is more appropriate as nectar is produced by flowers to attract insects. I presume this is not the case here. But English is not my mother tongue, so I don’t feel I’m the one who should correct this. no it doesnt mater they should use correct words t make the whole sentance sound inteligent ±clementyn 19:12,03 oct 2006 . The word nectar, like many words in the English language, has more than one meaning or connotation. In addition to "the sweetish liquid in many flowers", it also means "any very delicious beverage" (Webster's New World College Dictionary). In some instances, a popular use of nectar distinguishes beverages that are made up from a puree, such as apricot nectar or peach nectar (although tomato juice is more of a puree). The english language is not consistent, but hopefully this will help you through some of the variations that make it such a living and rich language.--SourceIt (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous amount of links

I fixed the page so that it doesn't contains links to .. like.. seeds and stuff. Links are supposed to help someone understand the articles topic better. Please do NOT link to anything and everything that may or may not have an article. Fresheneesz 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Satsuma and Clementine

Does anyone know if there's a real difference between a clementine and a satsuma?

Mandarin orange specifies a satsuma as the species Citrus reticulata, the same as specified on this page for the clementine. The same article also notes that madarin oranges do not have seeds because they are parthenocopic.

I don't have a good source on this, but I think Satsuma's and Clementine's are different cultivars that were produced by the same type of hybridization (Mandarin X Orange). I have lived on the both the east coast and the west coast of the United States. Stores tend to sell Satsuma's on the west coast and Clementines on the east. I have eaten both. I have noticed subtle but distinct differences: Satsuma's have slightly thicker skin and are easier to peel than the already easy Clementines (I can usually take all the skin off in one peel in a few seconds), Satsuma's also seem to be a bit sweeter.--Metatree 20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here in the UK the Satsumas are displayed next to the Clementines (this article is a bit wrong). They are definitely similar, but quite different.

This also says that the Southern US uses the term Satsuma. I've grown up in the South, started eating Clementines around 1990 and have never in my life (until I read this article) heard of a Satsuma.

Yes, clementine and satsuma are two rather different types of mandarin. See references such as the Hodgson article I added to the external links of the Clementine article, or the other references I suggested elsewhere on this talk page. -- Justinbb 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Segments

Similar to another observation, while reading this article and eating a clementine I realized that mine had 13 segments, rather than the 8-12 mentioned in this article. Is this just some crazy mutation, or is this common? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShortLifeLived (talk • contribs) 05:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I have just eaten a clementine with 15 segments. Maybe the sentence should be alterted to reflect the fact that this is an estimated number of segments. Also, this could need a source. HKH28 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed about the source question. IMO it always needed one, but my brief survey found nothing. On the other hand, there is always WP:BLUE. --Lexein (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Availability and Growth Origins

I have only recently become acquainted with Clementines. Are the available year round? I've been told that they are only available around the holiday season. I'm also curious about the differences that may be recognized between California grown versus Spain grown product. From my own personal experience, the Spain grown product had a much more pleasing taste than the California grown.

Pomerans vs. Bitter Orange

I could find no references to the term "pomerans" in English, although I found some references to that word in other languages. This page indicates that "pomerans" or similar term in Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, and Russian, would translate into "biter orange" or "Seville orange" in English.

Abuse

Why are people chumming this article? That's twice I've reverted here, and other editors have had to as well. Grr. Lexein 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit info

I deleted the statement "Clementines are awesome" from the article. While I completely agree, such opinion doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.42.118 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Medium" or "small"?

The article says they are "medium-sized" citrus but I would say they are "small." Clementines are often smaller than a lemon. A pomelo is "very large," a grapefruit is "large," a navel orange, tangerine, or tangelo is "medium," a clementine, lemon, or lime is "small," and a Key lime is "very small." Badagnani (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on this, however there must be an official and widely used way to rank the size of citrus fruit. -- carol 16:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Leading quotation

As per WP:LEAD and WP:MOS, the lead section, that is, "the section before the first heading", should "be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any". As it stands, this article's lead isn't capable of doing so, as its lead section has been replaced by a quotation. I attempted to remedy the situation, by transforming the first headed section into a stand-alone lead, but was reverted by Carol Spears, with a recommendation to move the discussion to this forum. In my opinion, this is not something that needs to be discussed; this is the MOS, and just good common sense otherwise. We should attempt to describe our topic, and a context-free advertisement for the wonders of clementines preceding any definition or description of clementines is simply not the best way to do so. The quotation would be much more useful to the reader if it were further down in the article, and integrated into some form of relevant discussion elsewhwere. (This article, ironically, lacks any discussion of the nutritional content of the clementine aside from the topmost quotation. A new section, integrating the quotation, would better serve the reader, I'd imagine.) Also, see WP:MOSQUOTE re:call-outs—simply put, blockquotes are favored above them. Thank you for your time! Happy holidays! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

All good points. Here is my take on this issue. I had an article that I wrote nomintated and accepted as a Did You Know article that has all of the bad and wrong qualities that you outlined here. There seems to be no end to linkable documentation here about what is acceptable and good and what isn't. Wikipedia isn't the only example of this, however, and long before this I discovered two things about most people that I encountered. The best devise for teaching is example and the other thing is that occasionally, something new and interesting happens when a good mind is not cluttered with a lot of dogmatic policy. It should be interesting to read other views and see even more wikilinks to policy and such about this matter here. Thanks for looking at this and thinking about it by the way. And about the holidays, do you know if there is an article about how stupid it is to have the end of the year when it has been scheduled? -- carol 11:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not familiar. It does seem quite cold though, doesn't it? I suppose it had to do with the end of harvesting season and the need to rush indoors to preserve the warmth. It has quite a deathly finality about it; the loss of leaves on surface flora, the freezing-over of still bodies of water, the hibernation periods of certain mammals, etc. I'm not really familiar with what sort of thought or tradition went into it, agricultural, ecological or otherwise. Apparently, it's a Roman thing that came along with more general calendar reforms in the Early Modern era. Before then, dates in early Spring were used.

The new year always seemed to me to occur in April where I lived, no matter what everyone else and the calendar said. I can see how it would be one of the first days after the task of dividing the harvest had been accomplished. In these newer centuries, it just seems like dangerous weather to be out drinking in and for people who live where it snows, not that fun to dress up to go out in. -- carol 01:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Very much so; holidays in any other season would be more appropriate. It just gets to be one of those things though: it's been here too long, we can't change it. We just have to stick with it. Unfortunately. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As regards the quotation, I think that, whatever WikiPolicy recommends, a good definition and description of the clementine would be more helpful to the reader than a quotation. The quotation is quite appealing aesthetically, but it's just not as useful as a traditional leading paragraph could be. It sort of assumes that the reader knows something of clementines before they drop in—and I wasn't entirely sure of what distinguished them from mandarins, oranges, and other citrus fruits before I dropped in either. It's a surprise, so whether you think surprise is generally a good thing or a bad thing would have some influence here. I'd be interested to think what the wider community thinks as well. It was nice speaking to you, carol. I'll drop out now. Good luck with the article! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If I removed the quotations, it would be a cited sentence in the text. It is all that a person actually needs to know about the fruit. Almost everything else on that page is trivia. The quotes there to me mean that I do not have to verify those statements that the quoted person made. Are you S.N.Smith, btw? Cquote He Doeth Protest To Much /Cquote -- W.Shakespeare

My calculus book (I think) had quotes from one of the Alice in Wonderlands as an introduction to every new chapter. I learned a lot from whatever book that was and not about Alice and her looking glass whose books I never read. If I claimed it added texture to the piece would that be too punny? -- carol 01:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh. No, I like the quotation, I just don't think it should start the article. Somewhere below the very first sentence. I should like to know what a clementine is before I go out and begin purchasing them. Some articles have some adequate quote-boxes (e.g. Demosthenes) on the side of the main body text which would serve the quotation well, IMO. I am not a S.N. Smith, no. (That would be an awful bit of Googling myself, wouldn't it? In any case, it looks like there are a number of SN Smiths to choose from.) Thank you for the discussion! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the quotation down. I like it, but we need to give readers a lead which clearly describes the fruit in question. This is a reference work that quickly tells readers what they're reading about. FCYTravis (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to move the quote back. The reason for this is that there was a discussion and an agreement was arrived at and I like that. -- Carol 09:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)

Carol, I'm sorry, but the Manual of Style is clear on this - we have to give readers a clear, encyclopedic opening. I don't see any "agreement" here. The quotation is great, but it cannot lead off the article. FCYTravis (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I just moved the quote back. When you have the time to rewrite the article (it is structured to have the quote where I put it and if you look at where you put it, it was really out of place) I will not interfer with you. Is there a manual of style for wikipedians in which there is the suggestion that it takes more than an opinion -- that perhaps a little effort needs to be included? I have a very difficult time making an opinion about the work of others. After putting some effort into quite a few things, the appreciation of the effort tends to naturally grow. So, when you rewrite the article to fit whichever of style guides you adhere to here, I will not undo what you have done. Thank you for the few seconds you took from your life to move one chunk of text in this article. -- Carol 20:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)

I've created a new "nutrition" section (maybe not the best title, but that can be fixed) to hold the quote. It's a good quote about their nutritional value. FCYTravis (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You should wait until you have the time to do this correctly. All of the documentation about how to document seems to allow messing things up and not allow to do a good job of it -- at least from what I can see. Please consider doing a nice and complete edit. Carol 20:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)

I am going to check back in a few minutes. If you do not have the time to put more effort into this, I am going to put things back the way I had them. The changes that you made look really not impressive and I do not think that the style guide intended for the articles to seem not impressive in order to fit into the suggestions made by the style guide. -- Carol 20:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)

Carol, respectfully, I would urge you not to continue edit warring here or elsewhere over your quotes until you discuss it fully first. Reverting once more on this page today will constitute a violation of the three revert rule and you may be blocked for disruptive edits. You have been given this information before so I expect that you understand the three revert rule. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios

Example:

Clementine

http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html#clementine

Known for its low total heat requirement for fruit maturity and the sensitivity of the seedless fruit to unfavorable conditions during the flowering and fruit-setting period; in regions of high total heat, the Clementine matures very early—only slightly later than the satsuma mandarins. Such regions also favor production of fruit of maximum size and best eating quality. As a consequence, Clementine is without doubt the best early variety in the Mediterranean basin, particularly in North Africa, and in other regions of similar climate.

Climatically, the distinctive features of the Clementine variety are its low total heat requirement for fruit maturity and the sensitivity of the seedless fruit to unfavorable conditions during the flowering and fruit-setting period. In regions of high total beat, the Clementine matures very early—only slightly later than the satsuma mandarins. Such regions also favor production of fruit of maximum size and best eating quality. As a consequence, Clementine is without doubt the best early variety in the Mediterranean basin, particularly in North Africa, and is highly promising in other regions of similar climate.

I've reverted back to the last (hopefully) copyvio-free version. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Going up in directories on the Citrus Industry page leads to no copyrights on the on-line book/pamphlet. However, it is contained in a directory Copyright 1999 University of California. --Blechnic (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to be certain: As I understand it, material created for or by the U.S. government is out of copyright, but this does not mean that all material on a governmental server was created for the government, making it at best uncertain. =/ In any case, exact quoting from that source is very extensive in CarolSpears' version, removing all of it would remove most of the article content. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Images

Here are two images I removed from the article that can be added back later when the article is expanded. Rkitko ^(talk) 11:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• 
  Clementines are generally easier to peel than oranges.
• 
  Box of Clementines with hand for size reference.

Hybrid?

i have heard rumors and i believe that a Clementine is a hybrid between Tangarines and Oranges, is this true?

The article says it's "a hybrid between a Mediterranean Citrus ×deliciosa and a sweet orange", citing two sources. However Mandarin orange says the clementine is "a hybrid between a mandarin orange and a sweet orange", citing a different source. Citrus ×deliciosa is said in its article to be mandarin × pumelo, once thought to be pure mandarin; that latter fact may account for the discrepancy. In any case the contradictory information needs to be reconciled. As for tangerines, they may or may not be genetically the same as mandarins. 24.59.86.60 (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Naming in Germany

I learned of Clementines while stationed in Germany in the late 1980's. The Germans markets, at least, clearly referred to them as Clementine. I even purchased a book there to help me learn the names of the different foods; it has a very good section on citrus fruits where Clementine is clearly explained and distinquished. (Gut eingekauft: Ein Wegweiser durch die Welt der Lebensmittel.) The book has gone through two revisions since I purchased it and is still available.--SourceIt (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Navbox

In theory, a navbox for citrus would be nice. Discussion will help. Shall User:Theospence explain the design reasoning, and User:Rkitko explain the revert? --Lexein (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No need for a long discussion. Simple case of User:Theospence either copy & pasting the code from {{Citrus}} or substituting the template. We don't include the full template code here in the article, so I reverted. Further, this article was not mentioned in the navbox, and navboxes don't belong on articles that are not linked to. Having said that, I think this article could be included in {{Citrus}}. I'll go ahead and do that now. However, my general hatred of navboxes (they have the annoying habit of gathering enormous amounts of links, rendering them relatively useless, while cluttering the bottom of the article) prevents me from inserting it into this article. Someone else can do that. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the concise summary. I likely would not include that particular one either - it seems out of scale for this article, compared to some relatively tidy navs elsewhere. --Lexein (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph in the article introduction

Most sources say that the clementine came to exist because of accidental hybridization, with the first fruits discovered by Father Clément Rodier in the garden of his orphanage in Misserghin, Algeria. However, there are claims it originated in China much earlier; one source describes it as nearly identical to the Canton mandarin widely grown in the Guangxi and Guangdong provinces in China.

This seems a bit like editorializing, and is certainly not what I'm used to seeing on Wikipedia. It seems far too biased in my opinion towards the claim in the first sentence, and the wording almost seems to slam the person whose book is cited after the second sentence. It does show the proper uncertainty for the second sentence, but it seems to show skepticism to the point it seems to want to make the reader not want to believe it for an ounce of its worth. This wording seems like something I would expect a group like CNN or BBC to put in terms of trying to give background on a major current conflict, and even then, they (in this case, BBC) have been noticeably less biased than this. impinball (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to propose a better version here. It will be less likely to provoke an edit war here than in the article. --Lexein (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Clementine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070204025104/http://lib.ucr.edu:80/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html to http://lib.ucr.edu/agnic/webber/Vol1/Chapter4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Production stats

I am not entirely comfortable with this section. Most global mandarin production is not clementine, and so in prominently presenting figures for all mandarins (even with the caveat that it also includes mandarins and others, as if they were a minor component) grossly inflates the importance of clementines, while also skewing the rank order of production. I suspect that were this limited to clementines the production numbers for China would drop precipitously, while those for Spain and Morocco would be less affected. Agricolae (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It all boils down to reliable secondary sources. If there's a better one, let's use it. It's a fine line to segregate clementines from mandarins for production data, which is why the FAO combines them. --Zefr (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but if the numbers aren't for clementines, it is inherently misleading, so I am not a fan of leaving it alone unless/until we find better stats. Just as the coverage in US sources might give the false impression that the US is a major producer, the use of broader mandarin figures gives the false impression that China produces more clementines than the rest of the world combined - knowingly highlighting misleading numbers not only with text but a big table, just because we can't find good ones, is not the best solution. At a minimum it should be rephrased, toned down and putting the emphasis firmly on these being mandarin numbers only a small part of which for some countries represent clementines. Agricolae (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please offer an edit draft here for discussion. --Zefr (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

As you probably noticed, I took a first step of making grouping more prominent and explicit, rather than being an aside or footnote. It is still a little misleading though (again, I highly doubt China is the major producer of Clementines, their number likely representing mostly mandarins, satsumas, and hybrids). That being said, I looked and couldn't find any data that weren't either too old or for just one nation. Agricolae (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge Clementine del Golfo di Taranto

I propose that Clementine del Golfo di Taranto be merged into Clementine. The former seems largely to be a duplication of the latter. Gjs238 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Support - I don't see there being enough unique to say about this particular variety to justify an independent article (that wouldn't be largely duplication). Better a section (or less) here. Agricolae (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Support - I don't see why not; the latter is more or less identical to the former. If I were able to move pages, I would do so right away myself without question.Bored history geek (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

One would simply need to copy the text from the Golfo de Taranto page and replace it with a Redirect, then put some part of it on the Clementine page. None of this requires a page move. The only trick is there are some specific rules one must follow regarding the process of the copy and paste, specific edit summaries and talk page markers to indicate what has been done - see: Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge. Go for it. Agricolae (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Agricolae (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

What is 'Citrus × clementina'?

The links for the below information are absent at this article. What is "Citrus" at "Citrus × clementina"? What is "clementina" at "Citrus × clementina"? Voproshatel (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)