Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus), roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa)

  • Published:
Economic Botany Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Uses of 16 species of Hibiscus, section Furcaria DC, are discussed, with particular reference to kenaf (H. cannabinus L.) and roselle (H. sabdariffa L.), the two most important species grown commercially as fiber plants. Other uses of this versatile group include use as ornamentals and employment of various plant parts as food, medicine, wood for musical instruments, and in superstitious rites. Comparative morphology of certain vegetative and floral parts of 11 species and seeds of 12 species is discussed. Reaction of plants of 11 species to root-knot nematodes is reported. Ratings varied from highly susceptible to highly resistant; kenaf was more susceptible to nematodes than the other 10 species. Suggested origins, distribution, and genetic relationships of kenaf, roselle, and related species are treated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  1. Bailey, L. H. 1949. Manual of cultivated plants. The Macmillan Co., New York. 1116 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bailey, F. M. 1899. Queensland Flora. Part I. Eanuneulaeeae to Anacardiaceae.Hibiscus. J. Diddams & Co., Brisbane, pp. 122–131.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Crane, J. C. 1947. Kenaf-fiber plant rival of jute.- Eeon. Bot.1: 334–350.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. —. 1949. Roselle—a potentially important plant fiber. Econ. Bot.3: 89–103.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dalziel, J. M. 1948. The Useful Plants of West Tropical Africa. Crown Agents for the Colonies. London. 612 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Exell, A. W. 1959. New and little known species from the Flora Zambesiaca area. Bot. Soc. Broteriana (Ser. 2)33: 165–181.

    Google Scholar 

  7. -, 1961.Hibiscus, pp. 434-472.In Exell, A. W. and H. Wild. Flora Zambesiaca Vol. 1, part 2. Crown Agents. London.

  8. Haarer, A. E. 1956. The roselle family. Fibres Eng. and Chem.17: 105–107.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hiern, W. P. 1896. Catalogue of the Afri- can plants collected by Dr. Friedrich Welwitsch in 1853-61. Dicotyledons, Part 1. British Museum (Natural History). London.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hillier, J. M. 1907. Canhamo Braziliensis Perini. Kew Bull. Misc. Inf. 1907, No. 8: 338.

  11. Hochreutiner, B. P. G. 1900. Revision du genreHibiscus. Ann. Conservat. Jardin Botanique Geneve4: 23–191.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hooker, J. D. 1872. The Flora of British India. Vol. 1, part 1, Ranunculaceae to Polygalaceae. L. Reeve and Co., London. 740 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  13. McCann, L. P. 1952. Kenaf(Hibiscus cannabinus L.), a bibliographical survey USDA Bibliog. Bull No. 17.

  14. Menzel, M. Y. and F. D. Wilson, 1961. Chromosomes and crossing behavior ofHibiscus cannabinus, H. acetosella andH. radiatus. Amer. Jour. Bot.48: 651- 657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. —. 1963. Cytotaxonomy of twelve species ofHibiscus, sect. Furcaria. Amer. Jour. Bot.50: 262–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. —. 1963. Chromosomes of an allodecaploid and related hybrids involvingHibiscus diversifolius. Jour. of Heredity54: 55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Morton, J. F. and R. B. Ledin. 1952. 400 plants of south Florida. Text House, Coral Gables, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Murdock, G. P. 1959. Africa, its peoples and their culture history. McGraw-Hill, New York. 456 pp.

  19. Ochse, J. J. 1931. Vegetables of the Dutch East Indies. Kementarian Partanian, Djakarta. 1006 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pate, J. B., T. E. Summers, and M. Y. Menzel. 1958. Resistance ofHibiscus eetveldianus to root-knot nematodes and the possibilities of its use as a source of resistance in kenaf,Hibiscus cannabinus L. Plant Dis. Rptr.42: 796–797.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ridley, H. N. 1922. The Flora of the Malay Peninsula. Vol.1. L. Beeves and Co. Ltd. London. 918 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sanyal, P. 1958. Embryological investigations inHibiscus sabdariffa }Xcanna-binus and their reciprocal crosses. Nature181: 1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. — 1959. Studies on the pollen tube growth in six species ofHibiscus and their crossesin vivo. Cytologia23: 460- 467.

    Google Scholar 

  24. — and B. C. Kundu. 1959. Cytologi- cal study ofHibiscus radiatus }XHibiscus cannabinus hybrid and genomie relationship of the two species. The Nucleus11: 99–108.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Skovsted, A. 1941. Chromosome numbers of the Malvaceae. II. Compt. Bend. Labor. Carlsberg23: 195–242.

    Google Scholar 

  26. —. 1944. Some hybridization experiments in the tribeHibisceae. Compt. Rend. Labor. Carlsberg24: 1–30. 27. Sprague, T. A. 1913.Hibiscus asper. Kew Bull. Misc. Inf. 1913, No.10: 418-419

    Google Scholar 

  27. Summers, T. E., J. B. Pate and F. D. Wilson. 1958. Extent of susceptibility of kenaf,Hibiscus cannabinus L., to root- knot nematodes. PI. Dis. Rptr.42: 591- 593.

    Google Scholar 

  28. —. F. D. Wilson and J. F. Joyner. 1961. Utilization of photoperiod response for selecting kenaf resistant to root-knot nematodes. Proc. Assoc. Sou. Agr. Work.58: 227.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Toxopeus, H. J., 1947. Preliminary account of the results of some species crosses inHibiscus. Genetica24: 90–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ulbrich, E. 1921.Hibiscus.In Engler, A. Die Pflanzenwelt Afrikas insbesondere seiner tropische Gebeite. Bd. II. Heft. 2: W. Engelmann. Leipzig, pp. 391–404.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Webster, P. J. 1911. Contributions to the history and bibilography of the roselle. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club38: 91–98.BOOK REVIEWS L. KAPLANRoosevelt University Chicago, Illinois RICHARD W. TRAXLERUniversity of Southwestern Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana RICHARD M. KLEINNew York Botanical Garden New York, New York T. E. WILSONUniversity of Southwestern Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana MAYNARD W. QUIMBY Massachusetts College of Pharmacy Boston, Massachusetts B. LOWY Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Belle Glade and Tallahassee, Florida

    F. D. Wilson CRD, ARS (Geneticists) & M. Y. Menzel CRD, ARS (Geneticists)

Authors
  1. F. D. Wilson CRD, ARS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Y. Menzel CRD, ARS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The research work on which this report is based was conducted cooperatively by the Crops Eesearch Division and the Agricultural Engineering Research Division, ARS, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and the University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Everglades Experiment Station. The junior author acknowledges the courtesy of the Department, of Biological Sciences, Florida State University in making available laboratory space and other facilities for cytological studies. Thanks are extended to Dr. T. E. Summers, Everglades Experiment Station, for rating plants for nematode resistance, and to Grady Reinert, Florida State University, for preparing the illustrations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilson, F.D., Menzel, M.Y. Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus), roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa). Econ Bot 18, 80–91 (1964). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02904005

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02904005

Keywords

Search

Navigation