Three plants CPB 10127 [on] 12504 (Bitter Sweet Root[stock]) received Sept 1930 and planted in lath house. Balled out Mch 1932 and planted April 1932. Field [12D], Row 26, Trees 10,11,12. One tree from CES nursery on sweet stock planted May 1931, Field 1, Block ABC, Row 41, Tree 38. (archival documentation on file at CES)One small plant on bittersweet cutting 12504 received from CPB fall 1929 from which the [tree @ CRC 8A-13-16,17] was budded. (archival documentation on file at CES)
Heavy crop, round fruit, medium peel. Seedy, white flesh, good tast, ricey. (WP Bitters, J Brusca, 3/10/1954)
Kao Pan (Kao Panne) is described in [Hodgson, 1967], pp 536-537. (EM Nauer, ca 1987)
This accession has dark pink flesh; is NOT Kao Panne. (EM Nauer, 5/1987)
Fair flavor, attractive interior. (EM Nauer, 12/22/1987)
This accession had a strange and tragic history. It was received by USDA as an un-named, white fleshed pummelo from Java. As of 1954, it was still a white-fleshed pummelo. At some point, someone decided it was 'Kao Pan' but I cannot find documentation of who or when. In 1954, from the documentation available, it appears that the original trees planted in 12S, Row 26 were the only one available for observation. The trees planted at 12D-35-1,2 in 1983 were propagated from the VI tree at LCFS. It therefore appears (but is not certain), that an incorrect, pink-fleshed pummelo was collected either for the VI in 1962 or from LCFS for the propagation of the 12A trees. When 12A-35-1 was removed in 2001, 2 trees were propagated from an incorrectly documented, protected tree (of which I also cannot find the original receipt documentation) that is actually PI 109715. Therefore, when 12A-35-2 was removed in 2011, the putative PI 109691 was lost. However, in truth it had been lost much earlier, whenever the pink-fleshed one was propagated. Several things are apparent: (1) the pink-fleshed pummelo was not consistent with either the original fruit or descriptions of 'Kao Pan' (see Reinking and Gross, 1921; Groff, 1927); (2) the CV name 'Kao Pan' may have been assigned erroneously either purposefully or not; (3) the pink-fleshed pummelo mistakenly associated with PI 109691 is probably another pink-fleshed pummelo that was or is in the collection; (4) there are at least 8 other 'Kao Pan' to deal with; (5) CPB 10127 is not associated with 'Kao Pan' in Groff (1927). In any event, PI 109691 is inactivated. Good riddance. Note: to further compound this commedia degli errori, PI 539365 was erroneously assigned to this genotype in the early 1990's. Observations were made when it was numbered PI 539356, as were distributions prior to today. (RR Krueger, 2014-05-15)
Additional information on PI 109691 from the Citrus Variety Collection is available here.