Loading variety overview…
World of CitrusWorld of CitrusRusk Citrange
University of California, Riverside — Citrus Variety Collection
https://citrusvariety.ucr.edu/crc301 (opens in a new tab)
Accessed
The Mulberries · YouTube · 2025-06-19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UX--KNY8pg (opens in a new tab)
Summary from transcript: Rusk Citrange was flushing more than nearby C-35; the speaker preferred Morton fruit to Rusk fruit (41:55–42:15).
Accessed
The Mulberries · The Mulberries · 2025-12-20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTe5XvCuDCY (opens in a new tab)
Near-full auto-generated transcript reviewed with the matching scorecard archive. This citation supports only the presenter’s stated, unscored comparisons; it does not identify a current tree, prove a pedigree, or establish measured hardiness.
Accessed
Tom McClendon · YouTube · 2026-05-03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKHh1ODKfhI (opens in a new tab)
Summary from transcript: English automatic captions reviewed 0:02–22:54 of 22:56. Greene County, Georgia exposed orchard context is distinguished from the presenter’s protected sites; raw timestamped capture is retained in the Thomasville citrangequat research archive.
Accessed
The Mulberries
https://themulberries.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Rusk-Citrange.png (opens in a new tab)
Individual scorecard image for Rusk Citrange. The printed preference ratings are sweetness 6/10, sourness 2/10 and bitterness 6/10; the linked fruit reference preserves these original ratings alongside catalog numeric scores. Sweetness is stored as printed; sourness and bitterness use 10 minus the printed score. Any Brix or pH printed on the card is a separate reading, not derived from ratings. Sample method and harvest date are not stated unless noted in the reference.
Accessed
The Mulberries · YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASa_qfqA5mE (opens in a new tab)
Summary from transcript: 31:46 video; English auto-generated captions cover 0:01–31:42; no exact publication date verified. The presenters compare one Rusk fruit with a separate Morton fruit; both were picked in early November in the Carolinas and may have been slightly early (0:13–0:24; 2:04–2:49). The Rusk fruit weighed 116 g (3:48–3:52); the presenter describes its color, aroma, seediness and peelability (8:14–9:26), and reports a strongly sour taste with some variation in perceived bitterness across bites (18:00–22:54). The presenter reports 11.5 °Brix and a pH strip reading around 3 for the Rusk juice (25:52–26:22). The video does not establish whether this fruit is the same sample as the variety’s undated Mulberries scorecard.
Accessed
University of California, Riverside — Citrus Variety Collection
https://citrusvariety.ucr.edu/crc1441 (opens in a new tab)
Accession-specific UCR page for CRC 1441 (PI 539809; VI 607). Records receipt as a cutting from W. T. Swingle, USDA, in June 1924, and Riverside ripening October–November. The page reproduces the Hodgson (1967) cultivar description and historical account also used for CRC 301; UCR notes CRC 301 and CRC 1441 appear identical. This citation is accession-specific and is not independent confirmation of the reproduced 1967 wording.
Accessed
Citrus ID
https://idtools.org/citrus_id/index.cfm?packageID=1179&entityID=8790 (opens in a new tab)
Citrus ID Edition 2, October 2011. Describes fruit as broader than long, with categorized rind colors from yellow through red-orange, leathery firmness, orange/yellow flesh and sour taste (morphology section). Its origin and extended morphology passages quote Hodgson (1967), the same source reproduced by UCR; those quotations are not treated as independent confirmation.
Accessed
Herbert J. Webber; Walter T. Swingle · U.S. Department of Agriculture Yearbook · 1905
Original USDA Yearbook account, Yearbook 1904, published in Washington in 1905, pp. 221–240. The Rusk citrange heading and origin paragraph are on p. 228. Webber and Swingle state it was one of three seedlings from one hybrid fruit in Col. G. H. Norton’s Eustis, Florida, grove in 1897; this supports the cross’s historical source/year and reported cross direction, not genetic testing. The supplied Small Farmer’s Journal page reprints this same work and is documented in research notes, not entered as a duplicate citation.
Accessed
Citrus Growers Forum
http://citrusgrowersstatic.chez.com/web/viewtopica7ab.php (opens in a new tab)
Read-only forum thread in Rootstock varieties, 20 Dec 2009–4 Jan 2010. At 21 Dec 2009 3:20 am, Malcolm_Manners (profile location Lakeland, Florida) compares Rusk with Troyer/Carrizo and says it is more compact but not dwarf like Flying Dragon; the post states no observation site, measurement or method. This is an unmeasured forum comparison, not a cultivar-wide size result. Other posts contain uncertain identification and seed-count claims; those are not used.
Accessed
Northwest Citrus and more · YouTube · 2021-12-31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa4-vMkQWiY (opens in a new tab)
Summary from transcript: English auto-generated captions reviewed 0:01–3:23 of a 3:26 video. In southwest Washington, the speaker identifies a Rusk tree and describes a prior warm spell/dormancy break followed by frost; the speaker says trees had survived temperatures in the teens while dormant. The separately reported 18°F is the current weather window, not a Rusk minimum or the prior frost temperature. Informal field observation only; no controlled or replicated hardiness test.
Accessed
Sweet Home Alabama Homestead · YouTube · 2024-11-01
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dUk559y6cA (opens in a new tab)
Summary from transcript: English auto-generated captions reviewed 0:02–6:45 of a 6:48 video. In an informal tasting of one Rusk fruit, the speaker describes a tough rind, juiciness and orangey aroma with a slight trifoliate note (1:41–2:25); later calls it “quite bitter,” “not that sour,” and describes a strong bitter/astringent aftertaste (2:49–3:33). No growing location, harvest date, maturity, fruit mass, measurement method or numerical score is stated. Sinton is a separate fruit; its taste comments are not attributed to Rusk.
Accessed
The Mulberries · YouTube · 2024-01-19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0NHxaqW6Dk (opens in a new tab)
Summary from transcript: English auto-generated captions reviewed about 0:00–18:46 of an 18:49 video. The speaker says fruit/trees/cuttings were collected from Stan McKenzie in South Carolina; cautions that the cut samples may be overripe or dry (1:17–1:30). The identified Rusk is described as a South Carolina fruit (9:50–10:03); captions report about 75 g average mass and medium seeds (7:28–7:34). The speaker describes juiciness, orange flavor/aroma, medium bitterness and high subjective acidity (7:03–8:41); a refractometer caption reads “112,” whose decimal/value is unresolved and is not converted to °Brix. Informal tasting and approximate captioned mass, not a replicated trial or calibrated taste score.
Accessed
The Mulberries · YouTube · 2025-12-09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyYTklmwDN4 (opens in a new tab)
Summary from transcript: English auto-generated captions reviewed 0:01–35:57 of about 36:00. The main fruit is a distinct Ruskandarin seedling, not a Rusk fruit. The presenter retains a separate comparison fruit and tentatively identifies it as Rusk (2:08–2:20; 28:09–28:18); at 29:43–30:30, the presenter describes it only as more bitter and sour/sharply acidic than the Ruskandarin. This is a relative comparison without numeric Rusk measurements or a Rusk score; the score sheet discussed later applies to the Ruskandarin.
Accessed
Richard L. Phillips; William S. Castle · American Society for Horticultural Science · 1977-09
Phillips and Castle, JASHS 102(5):526–528, DOI 10.21273/JASHS.102.5.526. Full text reviewed. The Florida trial compared 12 rootstocks with Valencia and an unnamed nucellar mid-season seedy sweet-orange scion. The authors describe Rusk as semi-dwarf for both scions, while noting poor adaptation to droughty soils could produce environmentally reduced growth and recommending adequate soil moisture in early years. This is a conditional rootstock/scion result; reported fruit-quality measurements are from the scions, not Rusk fruit.
Accessed
T. A. Wheaton; J. D. Whitney; W. S. Castle; R. P. Muraro; H. W. Browning; D. P. H. Tucker · American Society for Horticultural Science · 1995
Wheaton et al., JASHS 120(5):861–870, DOI 10.21273/JASHS.120.5.861. Full text reviewed. The factorial field experiment compares Hamlin and Valencia scions on Milam lemon or Rusk citrange rootstocks alongside topping height and row spacing. The authors describe Rusk as moderately vigorous and report scion-tree outcomes relative to Milam. Yield and fruit-quality observations are for Hamlin/Valencia scions on the named rootstocks, not fruit from Rusk citrange.
Accessed
G. Yelenosky · American Society for Horticultural Science · 1978-07
https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.103.4.449 (opens in a new tab)
Yelenosky, JASHS 103(4):449–452, DOI 10.21273/JASHS.103.4.449. The supplied carbohydrate-table image is from this same paper. Retrieved material was limited to the paper’s p. 449 abstract on the final displayed page of the available PDF extraction; the full four-page paper and table were not verified. The abstract concerns controlled cold conditioning of Valencia orange trees on Rusk rootstocks. It is not an outdoor Rusk hardiness threshold or Rusk fruit chemistry result.
Accessed
W. S. Castle; A. H. Krezdorn · American Society for Horticultural Science · 1975-01
https://journals.ashs.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/jashs/100/1/article-p1.pdf (opens in a new tab)
Castle and Krezdorn, JASHS 100(1):1–4, DOI 10.21273/JASHS.100.1.1. Full indexed article text reviewed. The study concerns Orlando tangelo scions on eleven rootstocks; for Rusk and trifoliate selections, the authors report that most feeder roots were in the upper 76 cm. Trial soil included a clay layer about 200–254 cm below the surface. This is a rootstock/root-distribution observation in the Orlando trial, not a measurement of an own-rooted Rusk tree.
Accessed
David G. Hall; Justin George; Stephen L. Lapointe · Crop Protection 72:112–118 · 2015
Hall et al. evaluated citrus-relative seedling populations for Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) colonization. Table 1 includes Rusk, CRC 301, in an August 2013 free-choice test. These data concern experimental ACP oviposition, not fruit, rootstock field performance, or orchard-level HLB control.
Accessed
William S. Castle; James C. Baldwin · Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society · 2010
Castle and Baldwin, Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 123:78–81 (2010), report one unreplicated Basinger, Florida planting of Parson Brown clone PB-S-F-56-2-XE on 19 rootstocks. Yields were measured over nine seasons (1992–93 through 2000–01); the authors did not statistically compare means. Rootstock-specific outcomes are confined to this clone and planting, not own-fruit or general cultivar traits.
Accessed
The Mulberries · YouTube · 2023-12-24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70GS8zU0qno (opens in a new tab)
Summary from transcript: English auto-generated captions reviewed 0:01–11:38. At 1:47–1:58 the speaker says Benton and Rusk have more notable flavor and uses than Troyer, then says he has heard Rusk is pretty good for marmalade. The marmalade statement is hearsay and is not based on an identified Rusk fruit, recipe, or firsthand preparation.
Accessed
W. P. Bitters · Journal of Citrus Pathology (digital special topic) · 2021 (digital edition; manuscript circa 1986)
At printed p. 82 (PDF p. 88), Bitters summarizes Moreira et al. (1965), who placed Rusk Citrange among the “fair” rootstock drought-resistance group. The source describes nucellar Bara and Valencia Late orange, Dancy tangerine, and Eureka lemon scions budded on 77 tristeza-tolerant rootstocks under nonirrigated conditions in Brazil. It does not identify the accession or clone of any listed rootstock, provide a variety-specific sample count, or report a measured threshold.
Accessed
Herbert J. Webber · U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry, Seed and Plant Introduction and Distribution; Government Printing Office · 1907-01-25
https://archive.org/details/CAT31443121/page/n1/mode/2up (opens in a new tab)
Four-page USDA circular prepared to accompany distribution of Rusk citrange trees; its text is dated January 25, 1907. It includes an origin and technical description, plus separate historical hardiness observations for young trees in northern Florida (15–17°F without leaf loss) and the Georgia Experiment Station (8°F in December 1901 without serious injury). This is a distinct 1907 circular; overlapping historical descriptions should not be counted as independent trials or treated as current performance thresholds.
Accessed