Momordica subangulata Blume, Bijdr. 928 1826. (Syn: Momordica subangulata subsp. renigera (Wall. ex G.Don) W.J.de Wilde; Momordica renigera Wall. ex G.Don) as per The Cucurbitaceae of India;
Images by (Surajit Koley – Id by J.M.Garg as per discussions in another thread), (For
more photos & complete details, click on the link)

/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1040439.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1040440.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1040444.jpg
/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1040441.jpg

 

It seems M. dioica, M. cochinchinensis and M. subangulata subsp. renigera are much confused, although they are quite distinct in flowers and fruits. All three share a large bract at the base of flower (tip of peduncle) and male and female flowers on different plants.

Based on flower the three can be differentiated in that flowers of dioica are yellow, without dark spots (nectaries) at the base of corolla, whereas remaining two have distinct dark dots at the base of pale yellow to nearly white corolla. The corolla lobes of M. cochinchinensis are pointed at tip, they are obtuse or rounded at tip.
The fruits of dioica and M. subangulata are narrowed distinctly towards tip, whereas they are rounded at ends in M. cochinchinensis, in which the spines are not that dense, fruit larger mostly longer than 8 cm, turning yellow and finally red. In M. dioica fruits are smaller, usually shorter than 6 cm densely covered with longer spines. In M. subangulata there are two subspecies, subangulata with longitudinal ridges, no spines, surface totally smooth, and subsp. renigera with tubercles present and in longitudinal rows, surface more or less spinescent if ridges are present;

I write a few more points, besides the keys already discussed in various threads, that i observed in the two species –
1) leaves are lobed in M. cochinchinensis, unlike M. subangulata var. renigera
2) lamina is glabrous on both sides in M. cochinchinensis, while it is slightly scabrous in the other
3) spines on fruits are different and inter spacing differs (already discussed in another thread)
4) we cut and ate both species, green fruits are rather hard in cochinchinensis and slightly bitter tasted, while it is not at all bitter in renigera


  • Attached images may be MomordicacochinchinensisSpreng. (?) growing in my residence [Kamrup distric(Metro)]. Please validate the ID
    Date :15.07.2013 &16.07.2013
    Location: At my residence [Kamrup district(Metro)], Assam
    Family :Cucurbitaceae
    Genus & species :Momordica cochinchinensis Spreng. (?)
    Habitat: Climb wild on Zizyphus mauritiana Lam.
    Habit : Climber
    Flower : Large, white, yellow and dark spot at the base of the petal; pedicel 19 cm long; bract at the base of the pedicel(4-5 mm)
    Fruits : large 


    This is the same plant that I had posted for ID long back. The plant close to my house is in flowers now. Hope to get the right ID now.


    It is known as Kakora in the north.


    Was it bract on female pedicel, in picture no. 21?


    There is a female plant near my house and in absence of a male plant nearby it does not bear fruits. The bract is at about 2 cm away from the base of peduncle and it is very minute and caducous. In other respect the plant tallies with your plant hence posting photos of only flowers.  


    I would go with M. subangulata subsp. renigera for … plant.


    One way to ascertain the ID of this plant, as per “Bengal Plants”, is – the seed of M. cochinchinensis Spreng. should be 1 in. long.
    As per Flora of British India – 7/8 th by 5/8 th and 1/5th in. thick….. irregular, ovate, … corrugated on margins.
    The literature and key by … tell me that this plant is likely to be M. subangulata ssp. renigera.
    Attached images may be Momordica subangulata subsp. renigera (Wall. ex G.Don) W.J.de Wilde (?) collected today (17.7.13) morning from a different place of Kamrup district (Metro). Plant is found with large bracts which were absent in my images of earlier post. Please validate the ID. 
    Date :17.07.2013
    Location: Maligaon Chariali, Kamrup district(Metro)
    Family :Cucurbitaceae
    Genus & species : Momordica subangulata subsp. renigera (Wall. ex G.Don) W.J.de Wilde (?)
    Habitat: Grows on fences.
    Habit : Climber
    Flower : Large white flower, with visible large bract, long pedicel
    Fruits : Seen


    This is a puzzle that i am yet to find any solution. I have opened another thread, asking help, regarding this –https://groups.google.com/d/msg/indiantreepix/3yKWQG3gOI0/wlOHsy88SUUJ.
    So far we at eFI, specially directed by …, could collect this much data that – 
    1) only two species M. cochinchinensis and M. subangulata ssp. renigera has similar looking flowers
    2) M. cochinchinensis has glands on petiles, leaf-blades, bracts (M. mixta FI. iii. 709).
    So, this plant cannot be M. mixta Roxb.
    There is an elaborate paper on Indian Momordica – http://www.mgutheses.in/page/?q=T%201079&search=&page=&rad=#1. Thus document also deals with variations on the two related taxa. But this doesn’t help. Because, this document also informs M. subangulata ssp. renigera has minute bract on female flower.


     

     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1050133.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1050132.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1050127.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1050126.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1050131.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1050128.jpg
    Another male plant, growing in the wild, found today. (2.8.13)


     

     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1150669.jpg
    It was for …. that I learned KAAKROL (or kaankrol) is not same as GOL-KAAKRA (or gol-kaankra). This particular individual was wild escape (and they often do escape) from cultivated form sold in market and liked as fried vegetable.



     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSC09655-800.jpg
    Spine gourd – Meetha karela MN210912: Sending photos of Spine gourd.
    Hindi : Kantola, Meetha karela
    Marathi – Kartuli
    Place : Bhopar gaon
    Habitat : Wild
    It’s available in the market for a short period during rain season.

    Yes Momordica dioica, the real Meetha Karela. Sometimes the name meetha karela is also used for Cyclanthera pedata and even Sechium edule (Chayote squash) both now grown in hills. There was a long discussion when a plant was uploaded under the name Meetha Karela.


    Thanks … for the Plant ID and info.  …, I did not see any flowers on the plant. I think the flowering season is over now as the fruits are seen only during the rainy season in the market.


    Nice catch Mani We call this Kakora


    I think it should be Momordica subangulata Blume only as per images herein. 


     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSC_0907-5-3.JPG

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSC_0909-6-3-2.JPG
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSC_0912-5-2.JPG

     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSC_0911-5-7.JPG
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSC_0908-0-6-7.JPG

    Momordica cochinchinensis (Lour.) Spreng. : 7 posts by 2 authors. Attachments (6)

    Location: Chobhar Height, Kathmandur , Nepal
    Altitude:  4600 ft.

    Date: 15 September 2016

    Nepali Names : झुसे करेला Jhuse Karelaa / चटेल Chatel / खेक्सा  

    Kheksa


    I think Momordica subangulata and not Momordica cochinchinensis as per images herein. 


    I guess you are correct …, but it is not listed 

    in Nepal.
    Another, google showing different types of fruits 
    for M. subungulata.


    There was a lot of confusion and very very long discussions between these two species. Pl. check details at the links of efi site. 


    OK …! 

     

     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Momordica-dioica-Delhi-1.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Momordica-dioica-Delhi-2.jpg

    Momordica dioica pl validate : Attachments (2). 12 posts by 5 authors.
    Sold in Delhi markets as Karela. May be M. dioica, pl. validate


    Momordica cochinchinensis (Lour.) Spreng commonly known as “KAKROL” in Bengali


    Tanay please check it again. To me M. dioica appears better choice

    http://www.servantlesscook.com/?p=355


    Right you are I made a blunder


    Here are some of mine (9)- Momordica dioica only & not M. subangulata subsp. renigera as per discussions in another thread.


    Yes … This we used to get at the end of Karela season. few days back the vegetable vender sold me few. While washing the green colour come out of them.
    It is dangerous to have even vegetables. Some are injected with harmons and some are dyed.


    Finally concluded as M. subangulata subsp. renigera as per discussions in another thread.


    Yes M. subangulata subsp. renigera



    Fruits & Vegetables week: Momordica dioica from Delhi :  Attachments (2). 7 posts by 4 authors.
    Momordica dioica Roxb. ex Willd. Sp. pl. 4(1):605. 1805

    Often sold in markets in Delhi, fruit vegetable
    Common English name: Spine gourd
    Hindi: Kaksa, meetha karela


    fruits & vegetables :: NATIVE, WILD :: Cucurbitaceae » Momordica dioica (5 attachments)- Momordica dioica only & not M. subangulata subsp. renigera as per discussions in another thread.


    I think these are also same from Panipat, wild, growing near railway line (7 attachments)- Momordica dioica only & not M. subangulata subsp. renigera as per discussions in another thread.


    Yes … You have got the perfect series. Let us now think what the other plant is which at least three members thought M. dioica but I considered Cucumis sativus. I will activate that thread again.


    Finally concluded as M. subangulata subsp. renigera as per discussions in another thread.


     
    Cucurbitaceae Week: Momordica dioica from Delhi : 2 images. 3 posts by 2 authors.
    Momordica dioica Roxb. ex Willd., Sp. Pl. 4:605. 1805.

    Common names: Jangli karela, kakrol,
    Differentiated from M. charantia by its smaller ovoid or ellipsoid fruit 3-5 cm long, yellow when mature, densely covered with soft spines, shortly beaked (rostrate) at apex.
    Photographed from local market in Delhi.


    Finally concluded as M. subangulata subsp. renigera as per discussions in another thread.


    Yes …


     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/K4YLEAveaTadtmvbqLcXN6gl4qfraEkSNJpKXvXpFHaorueyjgbsZDKkMPLREfeb-2eUlS_-_qrfBkdAN_CuFK4hwVHi0uhgT0zV9qbnwW432k-dMxg.jpg

     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/w3JdwtqJ_46L6nUyMUC9WvDYKO_FbvK6CYG8NiyPyqcAvPDIwydKQ3-6dKnfPtp8GK7f_1x3jt-sI0qmP4YwHArZeaE4RR8CAHShW8Z9DXO2cr3QF-o.jpg
    Cucurbitaceae week: Daily ‘haat'(market) – they know their botany, or their cucurbits, these farmers!: As if bringing some order to the arrangement, farmers in Dibrugarh have displayed the vegetables (representing the Cucurbit family) next to each other in the vegetable market. Guess they know their botany, or their cucurbits, these farmers!
    Left to right (First picture)
    1. Chow Chow Sechium edule  Chaco, chayote,
    2. Momordica species
    3. coccinia species
    4. Snake gourd – Trichosanthes anguina


    Second I think Momordica dioica


    Agreeing with … thought of Momordica doica.


    Finally concluded as M. subangulata subsp. renigera as per discussions in another thread.


     

     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Symbiosis%20228.jpg
    SYMBIOSIS : 228:  Attaching an image of a Redvented Bulbul enjoying the fruit of Momordica cochinchinensis . This fruit is a popular vegetable in Bengal and Assam. It is known as KAKROL in Bangla and BHAT KARELA in Assam. The tender fruits are eaten as vegetable.


    Finally concluded as M. subangulata subsp. renigera as per discussions in another thread.


     

     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/momordica%20cochinchinensis_2.JPG
    Flora of Manipur: Momordica : Attachments (1). 9 posts by 5 authors. 
    Momordica cochinchinensis, a fruit vegetable sold in Manipur markets.


    Good catch of fruits. It looks great to see plants from two extreme ends of Northern India.
    I will continue to send mine from Kashmir.


    Feeling good …, I had only little chance to experience the floristic wealth of western Himalaya (in and around Shimla). Now I am getting the chance to see the flora through your postings with beautiful photos. Thanks for that.


    This is also taken as vegetable out in Bengal it is called “KAKRUL” in Bengali


    Finally concluded as M. subangulata subsp. renigera as per discussions in another thread.


    Thanks to… for the revisit of Momordicas and to … for the updates.


     

     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Momordica-7.jpg
    Kindly have a re-look at this upload by …

    There seems to be a lot of confusion on the net regarding species of Momordica, often referred to as teasel gourd (though this name actually belongs to another cucurbit Cucumis dipdaceus which we dug out from our older posts). It seems M. dioica, M. cochinchinensis and M. subangulata subsp. renigera are much confused, although they are quite distinct in flowers and fruits. All three share a large bract at the base of flower (tip of peduncle) and male and female flowers on different plants. 
    Based on flower the three can be differentiated in that flowers of dioica are yellow, without dark spots (nectaries) at the base of corolla, whereas remaining two have distinct dark dots at the base of pale yellow to nearly white corolla. The corolla lobes of M. cochinchinensis are pointed at tip, they are obtuse or rounded at tip.
    The fruits of dioica and M. subangulata are narrowed distinctly towards tip, whereas they are rounded at ends in M. cochinchinensis, in which the spines are not that dense, fruit larger mostly longer than 8 cm, turning yellow and finally red. In M. dioica fruits are smaller, usually shorter than 6 cm densely covered with longer spines. In M. subangulata there are two subspecies, subangulata with longitudinal ridges, no spines, surface totally smooth, and subsp. renigera with tubercles present and in longitudinal rows, surface more or less spinescent if ridges are present.
    I have feeling that flower uploaded by… belongs to M. subangulata. Please comment.

    Thanks for resurfacing, the ID is yet uncertain. M. subangulata has calyx lobes purple from outside. I have pictures of plant that conforms to this ID key. I am attaching the picture of fruit of this query plant (? or just an ovary?) if it helps. The fruits did not ever get mature beyond this stage.


    I think it is a female flower, and if my idea is correct, looking at the young ovary this may be Momordica subangulata subsp. renigera, often confused with M. cochinchinensis or sometimes M. dioica, latter having yellow flowers without dark spots and former with dark spots but acute to acuminate petals, as uploaded by … efi thread


    Forgot to mention that in M. subangulata subsp. angulata fruits are smooth with longitudinal ridges.

     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Cucurbit.jpg

    Cucurbit for ID : Attachments (1). 9 posts by 4 authors.

    Pls ID this anuual climber. Leaves broadly ovate, cordate, coarsely serrate, 8-12 cm. Flowers 8-10 cm, pale yellow. Fruits caducous prematurely but resemble Momordica, 3 cm long, tubercled, red.


    … the flowers are really that big, about 10 cm. This is found on a hedge and vegetable vendors sit near it. I wonder if it is any of the plants used as vegetables but I do not know any.


    … resembles Momordica cochinchinensis at FOI http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Chinese%20Cucumber.html … differs in colour.


    … you are right, it is Momordica cochinchinensis. Yellowish colour appears to be the rule, white a rarity.

    Yes it is the female plant of M. cochinchinensis. Now I should look for a male plant to enjoy the Chinese Cucumber.


    … best of luck for male plants. An intelligent grower generally grows several vines in the same area to get a good mixture of male and female plants.


    A stupid question from me again!
    I had the impression that there are male as well as female flowers on ons single plant.
    I had grown zucchinis this year, and pumpkins last year. though I had put four seed in the soil just one plant survived and produced fruits. So why … should look for a male plant? Do Chinese Cucumber behave differently?


    …, I have not grown this plant, I found it on a hedge in a subji-mandi. I suppose the Chinese Cucumber must be coming to that market, I must keep an eye for ripe fruits. Thank you for the information.
    …, this plant grows unisexual flowers on separate plants (dioecious) unlike some other Momordicas. If I happen to know a male plant, I could carry out artificial pollination to fertilise a few flowers of this female plant that I know. A valid question anyway.

    Further discussions at Cucurbit for ID uploaded by Shrikant ji a relook


     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Momordica-dioica-Delhi-IMG_4548-Delhi-3.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Momordica-dioica-Delhi-IMG_4542-Delhi-4.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Momordica-dioica-Delhi-IMG_4539-Delhi-2.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Momordica-dioica-Delhi-IMG_4534-Delhi-1.jpg

    The Kakrol confusion: Do we have Momordica cochinchinensis in our database? : Attachments (4 + 4). 8 posts by 3 authors.

    Yesterday I photographed fruits sold in Delhi under the name Kakrol, the fruits are turning yellow as they mature, almost rounded at the flower end (not gradually narrowed) and important definitely longer than 5 cm, 5-7 cm long.
    I had earlier uploaded fruits of plant thought to be M. dioica 
    … suggested M. cochinchinensis, but perhaps my showing him true link of M. cochinchinensis he retracted (I now think my plant is M. renigera)
    In the same thread … uploaded what looks like true M. dioica, with yellow flowers lacking dark corolla spots, smaller fruits (less than 5 cm long) distinctly narrowed towards flower end.
    … uploaded a nicely illustrated plant without fruits, with clearly dark spotted corolla which could identify it with M. cochinchinensis or M. renigera
    … backed it up with another upload with flowers and fruits in different stages, and after I photographed fresh fruits two days back, I feel … plant resembles mine from Delhi market sold as kakrol. My fruits are broadly ovoid (not gradually narrowed like M. dioica) and 5-7 cm long. 
    BOTH MY PLANT AS WELL AS ONE UPLOADED BY … I FEEL IS M. RENIGERA NOW KNOWN AS M. SUBANGULATA SUBSP. RENIGERA 
    The same seems to true of plant uploaded by … as M. cochinchinensis is also M. subangulata subsp. renigera.
    Perhaps you will agree with me if see real fruits of Gac fruit, M. cochinchinensis, with much larger fruits (10-15 cm in diam), yellow in colour finally turning red, with more spaced shorter but stronger spines. 
    PERHAPS SOON SOME MEMBER WILL FIND AND UPLOAD M. COCHINCHINENSIS, THE GAC FRUIT AND REMOVE THE CONFUSION OF APPLYING NAME KAKROL TO IT.


    Our market gives same result, attaching photographs.
    These are all either M. subangulata ssp. renigera, or a hybrid form as have been discussed in one of the links you provided in earlier discussion – http://www.academicjournals.org/ajar/fulltext/2011/4July/Bharathi%20et%20al.htm.
    WILD & CULTIVATED
    I told, in my 1st post, that we have two KAKROL, one wild type and the other found in markets. I made mistake because 1) i was (and am) rather very novice 2) i found the plant in the wild.
    According to two or three local people the wilds have much bigger fruits and can only be found in rural jungles. My sources are all searching!
    HYBRID?
    As for these fruits, sold in the markets, can it be a hybrid? Because at least in one of my photos uploaded in the first post shows glands on the leaf margin at base.


    A more elaborate discussion on cultivation and hybrids –http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/103/02/0178.pdf


    Yes … In fact it was this paper which clinched the issue of our plant not being M. cochinchinensis rather M. subangulata subsp. renigera. I was about to upload the paper. Thanks you sent the link.


    Thanks to …, we finally have it in our database

    It also removed our confusion between M. renigera and M. dioica.
    And … located true fruits of M. dioica. Hope she uploads on the group soon.


    Thank you Sir, it’s great to be part of eFI.


    … at Delhi University could be one of the guys to consult for this matter 🙂

    He expertises in the family Cucurbitaceae.


     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN6758.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/set2_01-9.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/set2_03-8.jpg

     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/set2_02-9.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN6756.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/%3B-domain%3Dgoogle.com%3B-expires%3DMon--23-Dec-2019-12-53-03-GMT.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN6749.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN6757.jpg
    cucurbitaceae ID from Hooghly 11/11/12 sk2: Attachments (8 + 2 + 5 + 3). 15 posts by 4 authors.
    Found this wild climber (?) growing in wasteplace. I could not get nearer to it to ascertain how its leaves look.
    Species : Momordica sp. ?
    H & H : possibly climber, with big flower about the size of a bottle gourd or bigger than Luffa aegyptiaca Mill.; leaves maybe those in the bottom right of the last pic (set2_03. jpg)
    Date : 7/11/12 & 8/11/12
    Place : Hooghly
    Perhaps this is wild KANKROL in Bengali, a bigger spiny fruit, sometimes cooked as vegetables by villagers. But, there is also a smaller spiny cultivated KAKROL that can be found in market/bazaar.


    This is KANKROL, wild type and the botanical name is Momordica cochinchinensis Spreng.


    Perhaps you will have to confirm whether it is M. cochinchinensis or M. aubangulata var. renigera, the latter is supposed to be common in East India. The two have similar looking flowers. Following should help. It would be good if you could upload a fruit of it.

    M. cochinchinensis: Petiole with 2-5 glands; bract of male flower 3-5 cm long, 5-8 cm broad; fruit ovoid, 12-15 cm in diam, uniformly spiny.
    M. subangulata var. renigera: Petiole without glands, bract of male flower 2-3 cm long, 2-4 cm broad; fruit ovoid, 5-7 cm long, 2.5-4 cm broad, narrowed at both ends, covered with longitudinal rows of flattened tubercles or undulate ridges.


    I do not have any fruits of this wild plant. The plant itself no more exists. It was growing by railway side and the place has been cleared long ago. I am attaching two more photos. I am not sure if these photos would be of any help, for i do not have any statistics on their size.
    However, “Bengal Plants” has three species – M. charantia L., M. dioica Roxb. and M. cochinchinensis Spreng.
    Besides the above mentioned three species Flora of British India has three more. Of the six species, according to Fl. Br. Ind. two are common throughout India and M. cochinchinensis is found in Bengal, along with some other provinces.
    While searching both the species i found –
    1. this very thread
    2. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/indiantreepix/_qI82SdSpic/8BhnJV_Ld7kJ
    3. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/indiantreepix/WqcNDkSD8W8/Yc5tibppIp0J
    4. http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Chinese%20Cucumber.html
    5. http://www.efloras.org/object_page.aspx?object_id=120267&flora_id=2
    Now, please compare with –

    Some more pics, possibly from the same species.


    Petioles don’t give any clue but acute to acuminate corolla tips suggest M. cochinchinensis. A side view of female flower or young fruit should help further


    I couldn’t find gland on the petiole. But i think three glands can be found on the leaf margin, as have been illustrated in FoC – http://www.efloras.org/object_page.aspx?object_id=119709&flora_id=2


    Yes … I missed them earlier. You are a real researcher.


    I think M. cochinchinensis is supported by both glands and acute to acuminate corolla lobes, as well as dark spots at base.


    Thank you very much Sir, for confirming the ID. I also very much wish that oneday i could find a female plant and fruits.


    The place where i found the plant for the first time was really got cleared. But then again it is growing. Or is it another? Then there must be a female plant nearby. The place is not safe (ideal for snakes).


    Perhaps there is a dire need to get authentic specimens of both male and female flowers, leaves, young fruits and ripe fruits of M. dioica, M. cochinchinensis and M. subangulata (with two subspecies subangulata and renigera). All often given common name of teasel gourd (a name which actually belongs to Cucumis dipsaceus, which we recently resolved in a separate thread).
    I am surprised to note some very reputed websites labelling M. cochinchinensis as M. subangulata:
    http://www.plantsystematics.org/imgs/dws/r/Cucurbitaceae_Momordica_subangulata_17585.html
    Where as the true M. subangulata can be seen here:
    It looks M. subangulata is confused with both other species.
    Perhaps all three may be found in your area to explore and investigate.


    Recently i also have developed some doubt over the id of my species, in this thread. Specially when i didn’t find any gland on the petiole. Moreover, the leaves are entire.
    All i could collect on the 11th May, on my second visit, gathering much courage, is two leaves, a bud, and a wilting flower. There was no fresh flower. Yesterday, i noticed several blooming flowers, but didn’t dare to go nearer. This time also it is a male plant.
    Yet, i think this species is M. cochinchinensis, for, 1) its long petiole, 11cm (against 3-8 cm in M. subangulata as per FoC) and 2) Flora of British India writes –
    Leaves 4-5 in. diam. …… usually 3 lobed…… petiole 2-3 in., almost invariably glandular on its middle as well as apex….”
    I am attaching three more pics, recorded on my 2nd and 3rd visit.
    I will keep this issue in my mind and try to find more.

    Finally concluded as M. subangulata subsp. renigera as per discussions in another thread.


    Yes, …, as per discussion in efi thread and 1) shape of lamina 2) absence of petiolar glands (as can be found in efi thread, this is M. subangulata subsp. renigera.


     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1040490.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1040489.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/P1040438.jpg
    Hooghly Today : Momordica subangulata ssp. renigera ? : Attachments (7 + 3). 5 posts by 2 authors.
    This plant is growing beside TULSI-MANCH.

    According to owner it gives fruits every year.
    I didn’t have much time, but a short scan gave me no glands on petiole.
    Neither i could examine the flower or bract.
    It is edible as vegetable.
    The KAAKROL in the market often grows bigger than this size.


    I think M. cochinchinensis

    petals are acute at tip
    fruit is rounded at tip not gradually narrowed
    tubercles are are even distributed.
    Please note down the size of mature fruit to clinch the issue.


    This is getting more and more interesting. While flower and fruit tubercles suggest this is M. cochinchinensis (M. mixta Roxb. in FI), glands are apparently missing.
    I am keeping a note and may find more plants near future.


    Yes … this confusion has to be resolved. Most websites are more confused than us. It would help a lot if in next upload you could place fruits of this plant as well as kakrol (better one that is least handled, as spines break during handling) from market. Could you please send me a high resolution image of kakrol from market to my personal email id?. Also of mature fruit of this plant.


    Kakrol in our market yet to appear. I searched this morning. I have been told, about a fortnight ago, that the plants in the fields have just started growing.
    I have information of two more plants, near the houses of my colleagues. i will visit them.
    I certainly will take photos, as much details as i can find, and send you high resolution ones.


    Finally concluded as M. subangulata subsp. renigera as per discussions in another thread.


    I think this is M. cochinchinensis, too.

    I remember seeing this species in Gujarat. The fruits are nearly spherical, of a cricket ball size, and the pulp is reddish orange when ripe.

    The fruits in the posted pictures may be young and unripe.


    There should be no doubt about this after real M. cochinchinensis was found by  … in the thread linked below
    I already had photographs with me (rather purchased online) of semimature yellow and red mature fruit.
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/indiantreepix/Kakrol/indiantreepix/lSutUfvKQ5I/yCA9HJQrYYkJ


    I write a few more points, besides the keys already discussed in various threads, that i observed in the two species –
    1) leaves are lobed in M. cochinchinensis, unlike M. subangulata var. renigera
    2) lamina is glabrous on both sides in M. cochinchinensis, while it is slightly scabrous in the other
    3) spines on fruits are different and inter spacing differs (already discussed in another thread)
    4) we cut and ate both species, green fruits are rather hard in cochinchinensis and slightly bitter tasted, while it is not at all bitter in renigera
    I am attaching seed photos of M. cochinchinensis ( tallies with the photo in pdf – http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/103/02/0178.pdf), i will take photographs of entire seed of M. subangulata var. renigera.


    Great! Thanks … for the useful descriptions and pictures! eFI is getting enriched with such diagnostic details


    I should add that the leaf features i have mentioned are based on mature leaves of M. subangulata ssp. renigera and newly formed leaves on M. cochinchinensis seedling. 
    I still do not know how the entire seed of M. subangulata ssp. renigera looks like. Page of http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/103/02/0178.pdf document shows seed of M. cochinchinensis and M. charantia.


    The entire credit goes to eFI, …


    Attaching photographs of seeds of KAKROL which are sold in markets. They do not sell ripe fruits.


    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN8675.jpg

     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN8685.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN8679-9.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN8678-2.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN8676.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN8672-7.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN8670.jpg

    Hooghly Today : Momordica subangulata subsp. renigera (Wall. ex G.Don) W.J.de Wilde : Attachments (8). 3 posts by 1 author.

    You may ask, “Why again!”

    Because –
    1. to remove confusion, against M. mixta Roxb. (M. cochinchinensis Spreng)
    2. bracts on female flowers absent in this plant found in another homeyard (bract was present in female – efi thread and in male – efi thread)
    3. no petiolar gland
    4. leaves without lobes in all cases i’ve come across
    Perhaps FoC is correct when it says, “Female flower solitary; pedicels filiform, 5-10 cm; usually with a minute bract at base…”


    I think in my 2nd upload at, efi thread, perhaps there were two plants, one male and the other female growing side by side. Only this line of thinking can explain the presence/absence of bracts on flowers.


    I was wrong last night. The picture, no. P1040439.jpg, in my earlier upload in another thread, is of a female flower, not a male. The female flower in that post shows relatively a large bract !!!

     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN8652b.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN8653-6.jpg
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DSCN8654b.jpg

    Momordica renigera in Hooghly and Kamrup need attention : Attachments (3). 1 post by 1 author.

    After several recent discussions on Momordica cochinchinensis & M. renigera (M. subangulata ssp. renigera), i thought i know the both plants very well. But, very recent find by myself in Hooghly and … in Kamrup give rise to new question – why apparently similar looking plants are showing different bract characters, on female flowers, on different individuals?

    I searched a lot, last night…. this morning…. this evening, but failed to find any answer.
    1. KAMRUP : https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/indiantreepix/y4lsydu2b3s/JD0HpXj_crEJ
    2. Hooghly : https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/indiantreepix/xiq5VBXvGKU
    Momordica renigera with conspicuous bract on female flower (could not find any literature)
    It is certain that none of the above is Momordica cochinchinensis (Lour.) Spreng. Because, every literature i found describes having glands on petiole and/or leaf-blade, also on bracts; smooth lobed leaves; larger fruits.
    The problem is i have only two literature related two taxonomical descriptions of M. renigera – 1) FoC and 2) 5 minutes free access to http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/on-the-occurrence-distribution-and-taxonomy-of-momordica-subangulata-TdMZ63JlMt/6.
    The second document above gives an account of infraspecific variability; but that variability remains focused mainly on fruits.
    Flora Indica or Bengal Plants doesn’t throw any light on M. renigera.
    Flora of British India, under M. dioica, does mention M. renigera having large woolly bract. But, it is not clear if the same can be found on both, male & female flowers.
    I am attaching three more photos of another (my 4th collection of renigera series) plant, found in the wild, yesterday. Please, note, in this 4th individual –
    • no conspicuous bract was present
    • in addition to the three big darker spots/eyes there were two more smaller eyes at the base of remaining two petals

    Attaching fruit & seed pictures of this particular wild M. subangulata ssp. renigera.

    It is to be noted –

     

     

    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Momordica%20cochinchinensis%20-2-.JPG
    /wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Momordica%20cochinchinensis%20-1-.JPG
    MS June,2018/09 Momordica cochinchinensis for confirmation : 4 posts by 2 authors. Attachments (2)
    Location : Saitual, Mizoram

    Date : 02-06-2018
    Habit : Climber
    Habitat : Both wild and cultivated
    Mizo : Mai-tam-tawk

    Pl. check at 

    Does not match with images of the suggested species.

    Pl. check 
    To me appears close. 

    Same Momordica 

    Attachments (1)

    Location : Saitual, Mizoram

    Date : 02-06-2018 
    Habit : Climber
    Habitat : Both Wild & cultivated
    Mizo : Mai-tam-tawk

    I also think matches with images at 

    Momordica dioica


    Thanks, … But flowers look different. 

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *