The DOI matches its Crossref record.
TYPES OF NECTAR IN ANGIOSPERMS
Open accessAbstract
Summary: The nectar of 889 species and some fifty varieties of Angiosperms has been analysed by paper partition chromatography. Ten different types of nectar are distinguished (with two or three very uncommon types in addition) and are broadly classified into: Nectars with dominant sucrose. Balanced nectars with about equal amounts of sucrose, fructose and glucose. Nectars with dominant fructose + glucose. Three oligosaccharides occurring in nectar are identified and a fourth is named tentatively. Eight hundred and twenty‐eight species appear to have nectar of constant composition: sixty‐one species have nectar which varies distinctly. The variation does not appear to be linked with locality or date of sampling. The distribution of nectar types is traced through the Herbaceae. Sucrose‐dominated nectars appear to be associated with long‐tubed flowers having protected nectar, and fructose +glucose‐dominated nectars with ‘open’flowers having unprotected nectars. Many humble‐ and honey‐bee, butterfly and moth flowers have nectars with sucrose more or less strongly predominating over fructose and glucose. The climax groups of the Cruciferae, Umbelliferae, a section of the Compositae, the Euphorbiales and the herbaceous Rosaceae have a completely broken‐down nectar of equal parts of fructose and glucose which is technically honey. The preference of Apis mellifera for certain sugar mixtures and the types of nectar in some honey‐bee flowers are explored.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Heinrich, B. (1975) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.06.110175.001035 · Cited by 466
Suitability of (extra-)floral nectar, pollen, and honeydew as insect food sources
Wäckers, F. L. (2005) · Plant-Provided Food for Carnivorous Insects · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511542220.003 · Cited by 290
Ecology of yeasts in plantâbumblebee mutualism in Central Europe
Brysch-Herzberg, M. (2004) · FEMS Microbiology Ecology · doi:10.1016/j.femsec.2004.06.003 · Cited by 253
Crop volume, nectar concentration and hummingbird energetics
Hainsworth, F. R., & Wolf, L. L. (1972) · Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology · doi:10.1016/0300-9629(72)90117-x · Cited by 127
Floral Reward, Advertisement and Attractiveness to Honey Bees in Dioecious Salix caprea
Dötterl, S., Glück, U., Jürgens, A., Woodring, J., & Aas, G. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093421 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- PERCIVAL, M. S.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1961-10
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 235-281
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2151102896
- Cited by
- 488
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: TYPES OF NECTAR IN ANGIOSPERMS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1961.tb06255.x
- The paper
- PERCIVAL, M. S. (1961). TYPES OF NECTAR IN ANGIOSPERMS. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1961.tb06255.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.