Every now and then I encounter apple trees naturalised in damp and sheltered places. While I was at Nadur, I stopped to examine a specimen from a group of 7 trees or so aside a water course.
Flora Europaea keys M. domestica from their pomes being larger than 5cm, but the trees I examined had them 3cm. Leaves were tomentose on the lower side, glabrous or sparse hair on the upper side, hence eliminating M. sylvestris (which has completely galbrous leaves).
I lack a good key of Malus and also I have no expertise on this alien genus. I wonder if someone might help on the identity of these naturalised apples. They might be a different species from M.domestica but used a rootstock for graftic Malus domestica and slowly are reverting to the original species - just a mere speculation - but my point is that the fruit look different from the normal apple fruit we eat.
Are we sure it is Malus domestica?
Moderators: AlanOuten, MWP admin, IL-PINE
Are we sure it is Malus domestica?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
I did some research and Malus pumila is the best guess. All Malus trees I've checked in Malta had hairy leaves so I wonder if we really have M. sylvestris. Its records might be a mis-identification of the past.
Interestingly, fruit of these apple trees with small fruit and pedicels are quite hairy with tomentose, white hair at the lower side of the leaves, pedicels, tepals, and even to some extent the rind (exocarp) of the fruit.
There seems to be a bit of taxonomic confusion, where Malus domestica Borkh. is questioned to be an illegitimate name and so M. pumila would be the accepted name. Until further research, I am labeling these particular trees as <i>Malus pumila </i>.
Interestingly, fruit of these apple trees with small fruit and pedicels are quite hairy with tomentose, white hair at the lower side of the leaves, pedicels, tepals, and even to some extent the rind (exocarp) of the fruit.
There seems to be a bit of taxonomic confusion, where Malus domestica Borkh. is questioned to be an illegitimate name and so M. pumila would be the accepted name. Until further research, I am labeling these particular trees as <i>Malus pumila </i>.
