Why is Mangifera casturi not a mango?

[fliptop]

Mangifera casturi is typically considered a "relative" of mango, but why isn't it considered a "type" of mango instead?

[nattyfroootz]

I would assume because it is a different species:

Mangifera indica, Mango
Mangifera casturi, Casturi

Just as

Artocarpus heterophyllus, Jack fruit
Artocarpus integer, Cempedak

Both closely related fruits but not the same thing. Different genetic differences,  etc.

[fliptop]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

Pantherophis is the genus of rat snakes here, and different species names indicates different rat snakes, but they're all considered rat snakes . . .

My non-scientific brain was just wondering . . .

[fruitlovers]

Some botanists do call kasturi a "wild mango". For example Dr. Campbell and Ledesma do that all the time. Personally i think that's not a good practice. Calling all 32 species of mangifera a "wild mango" leads to a lot of confusion. And besides that there are some species besides indica that are cultivated, like odorata and kasturi, so it's incorrect also to call them wild.

[swincher]

One of the reasons scientific names are the more precise way to refer to particular plants is there's no ambiguity about whether you mean a genus or species, whereas common names sometimes refer to particular species, sometimes refer to a whole genus, and sometimes even refer to related genera.

So the answer is it's a mango if you want it to be because that's just a common name and therefore imprecise by nature.

[cassowary]

mango
from Portuguese manga, from Malay (Austronesian) mangga and Tamil (Dravidian) mankay, from man "mango tree" + kay "fruit."

In Bali they call mangifera caesia wanii and not mangga and I think they call the Bambangan just that and not mangga.

Still think "wild mango" is a good way to explain a mangifera sp. that's not mangifera indica in layman terms talking to general public.

[swincher]

Wild mango would be inaccurate for M. casturi if Wikipedia is correct that it is extinct in the wild and only exists now in cultivation. I think you could call it either "another species of mango" or "a mango cousin" and most people would get what you mean well enough without throwing in the "wild" term that is probably not correct for many Mangifera species.

[Guanabanus]

Fruitlover, when dealing with the public, everything is confusing, no matter what you start out saying!

The genus name, Mangifera, means "mango-bearing".  By definition, the fruit of a mango-bearing tree, is a mango.

So something like, "This is a casturi, a rare species of mango, which is separate from the well-known India-type and Southeast-Asian-type mangos, that most people know," is about as clear as we can be.

[fruitlovers]

Fruitlover, when dealing with the public, everything is confusing, no matter what you start out saying!

The genus name, Mangifera, means "mango-bearing".  By definition, the fruit of a mango-bearing tree, is a mango.

So something like, "This is a casturi, a rare species of mango, which is separate from the well-known India-type and Southeast-Asian-type mangos, that most people know," is about as clear as we can be.

I'd say that when a genus name "mangifera" is used as if it were the name of just one fruit "mango" that is already inherently confusing.  What is even worse is the name mango referring only to Manifera indica and the name "wild mango" being used to refer to all other species besides indica. This seems to be the practice of Dr. Campbell and Ledesma.

[roblack]

Wild casturi mango tastes pretty nice when picked and eaten at the right time.

Definitely is different from any m. indica I've come across.

If truly extinct in the wild, good thing it lives on in cultivation.

Sampled a couple other wild mangoes. All were interesting and palatable, worth preserving.

[Galatians522]

It does seem slightly arbitrary to me to lump all mangos under the same scientific name of Mangifera Indica when SE Asian Mangos have defining charisteristics that are readily evident even to a layman (such as fruit shape and seed type). Seperate species have been created for less than that before and in my opinion it is worth at least a subspecies designation such as is given to yellow passionfruit. Actually, if you look over at the genus prunus, scientists will tell you that the tree will need to be in bloom or that you will need a magnifying glass to differentiate between some species! Seriously??? I vote for no seperate species if the differences are that minute.

[swincher]

It does seem slightly arbitrary to me to lump all mangos under the same scientific name of Mangifera Indica when SE Asian Mangos have defining charisteristics that are readily evident even to a layman (such as fruit shape and seed type). Seperate species have been created for less than that before and in my opinion it is worth at least a subspecies designation such as is given to yellow passionfruit.

I think many botanists and biologists would readily admit that where we've drawn the line for species vs. subspecies vs cultivar is pretty arbitrary lots of times. I'd certainly agree that Indian vs SE Asian mangos are at least as different from each other as, say, the three subspecies of avocado.

[David H]

Kostermans and Bombard's monograph on the Mangifera genus is titled 'The Mangoes '.   They refer to M.indica,as 'common mango',and  'mango' as a term referring to members of the Mangifera genus.   An example from the preface :  ".....will provide information on existing mango species and their value in the common mango  (Mangifera indica ) industry.   Information is provided on mango (Mangifera ) species growing in very dry areas,......."

[fruitlovers]

Imagine Har all the annona species being just called by one common name annona. This actually does happen in some parts of south America. While technically correct this also leads to tremendous confusion when there are so many distinct species. The situation is comparably confusing with all mangifera species just being called mango.

[Guanabanus]

True.  Modifiers always required.