Types of Coffee Beans: Arabica, Robusta, Liberica, and Excelsa
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 28, 2026 · Editorial Policy
The four names most often meant by “types of coffee beans” are Arabica, Robusta, Liberica, and Excelsa. They are useful consumer categories because they point to real botanical differences that can influence plant growth, bean chemistry, flavor tendencies, caffeine, and availability. Arabica is Coffea arabica; Robusta is the common commercial name for Coffea canephora; Liberica is Coffea liberica; and the coffee commonly called Excelsa is now accepted as Coffea dewevrei.
That four-name list is a coffee-market shortcut, not the full botanical inventory. Kew’s current Plants of the World Online backbone recognizes 133 accepted species in the genus Coffea. Arabica and Robusta nevertheless dominate modern production so completely that a 2026 genomic study describes them as accounting for more than 99.99% of the world’s coffee. Liberica and Excelsa are genuine commercial coffees, but they are exceptionally small crops by comparison. The same research treats Liberica and Excelsa as separate species and examines hybrids between them.
The most important practical point is that species is only one layer of a coffee’s identity. A bag’s variety or cultivar, origin, climate, processing method, roast, freshness, grind, water, extraction, and serving recipe can all change the cup. Species creates tendencies and constraints; it does not predetermine a single flavor. That distinction matters because labels such as “Arabica,” “dark roast,” “single origin,” and “espresso” describe different things.
The four main coffee bean types at a glance
Arabica: Coffea arabica
Arabica is the species most strongly associated with specialty coffee and with the broad aromatic range consumers often describe as floral, fruity, citrus-like, nutty, chocolate-like, or sweet. Those are tendencies across many coffees, not a universal Arabica flavor. World Coffee Research documents dozens of cultivated Arabica varieties, and those varieties differ in agronomic performance and cup-quality potential.
Arabica beans generally contain less caffeine than Robusta beans when comparable green-coffee samples are analyzed. In a multi-origin chemical comparison, Coffea canephora consistently contained more caffeine than Coffea arabica. That does not mean every cup of Arabica contains less caffeine than every cup of Robusta, because the dose of ground coffee, extraction method, beverage volume, and recipe also determine the amount in the drink.
Robusta: Coffea canephora
Robusta is the common market name for Coffea canephora. It is not the formal species name “Coffea robusta.” Robusta is the second globally dominant cultivated coffee species; World Coffee Research estimates that it accounts for approximately 40% of global production. Its genetic diversity is broad, and treating every Robusta coffee as one uniform product erases major differences among plant material, origins, processing, and quality levels.
Comparative sensory studies often find Robusta brews more bitter or astringent and higher in caffeine or chlorogenic compounds than comparable Arabica brews, but the result depends on preparation. In one controlled cold-brew experiment, Robusta brews showed more dominant bitterness and astringency while Arabica brews showed more sourness and coffee flavor; importantly, the study found no difference in preference between the tested beverages. “Robusta tastes worse” is therefore an opinion, not a scientific property of the species.
Liberica: Coffea liberica
Liberica is Coffea liberica, a distinct coffee species native to upper West Africa under the revised modern delimitation. It produces unusually large trees, fruits, and seeds compared with the major commercial species. Current production is tiny, but Liberica remains culturally and economically important in parts of Southeast Asia and is receiving renewed attention as producers look for a wider portfolio of coffee crops.
Flavor descriptions for Liberica should be handled more carefully than the internet’s stock phrases suggest. A 2026 Scientific Reports study describes evaluated Liberica material as often dominated by bold tropical-fruit notes such as jackfruit, mango, passion fruit, and longan, together with green-tea notes, low acidity, and high sweetness. Those descriptions come from specific evaluated material and an emerging research base; they are not a promise that every Liberica lot will taste that way.
Excelsa: Coffea dewevrei
Excelsa is the name widely used in coffee trade and consumer writing for Coffea dewevrei. This is where many current coffee guides are already out of date. Excelsa was long treated as part of a broad Liberica concept, often written as Coffea liberica var. dewevrei, and older sources may still repeat that classification. A 2025 Nature Plants genomic and morphological study separated the former broad Liberica complex into distinct species, including C. liberica and C. dewevrei; Kew now accepts Coffea dewevrei as a species and lists older Liberica-based names as synonyms.
In the 2026 follow-up research, evaluated Excelsa samples were characterized by dark dried-fruit notes such as currant, prune, plum, and fig, along with chocolate and spice, usually with low-to-medium acidity, low bitterness, and medium-to-high sweetness. The researchers also emphasize the crop-development potential of C. dewevrei and hybrids with C. liberica. Again, these are research-based tendencies from available samples rather than a universal flavor template.
What does “type of coffee bean” actually mean?
A coffee “bean” is botanically a seed inside the fruit of a Coffea plant. Kew’s description of Arabica fruit, for example, notes that the fruit usually contains two seeds, sometimes one. The word bean is useful culinary language, but it should not be mistaken for a botanical relationship with legumes. Kew’s Arabica description gives the fruit-and-seed morphology directly.
Species is the level represented by Coffea arabica, C. canephora, C. liberica, and C. dewevrei. A variety or cultivar is a more specific cultivated genetic type within a species or breeding lineage. Bourbon, Typica, Caturra, SL28, and many other familiar names belong to the variety/cultivar layer rather than being additional coffee species. World Coffee Research’s catalog makes this distinction visible by organizing many cultivated varieties under Arabica.
Origin answers where the coffee was grown. Processing describes what happened to the harvested fruit and seeds after picking, such as washed, natural, honey, or fermentation-based approaches. Roast level describes thermal processing after the green coffee is dried and prepared for roasting. Brewing method describes extraction, and a drink name describes a recipe or service format. An espresso can be made from Arabica, Robusta, a blend, or another suitable coffee; “espresso bean” is therefore not a botanical species. For a full roast-level comparison, see Coffee Roast Levels: Light, Medium, Dark, and How Roast Changes Flavor.
Arabica coffee in depth: what the species label tells you
Coffea arabica is an accepted species native to a region of northeastern tropical Africa, with wild populations associated especially with Ethiopia and neighboring areas. Commercial cultivation now spans the coffee-growing world. Arabica is also genetically unusual among cultivated coffees: it is a hybrid-origin species, and the cultivated population contains numerous named varieties with distinct agronomic traits.
For a consumer, the Arabica label tells you species composition, not a quality grade. “100% Arabica” means the coffee is represented as Arabica rather than a blend containing Robusta or another species. It does not tell you whether the coffee was selectively harvested, well processed, freshly roasted, appropriately stored, or skillfully brewed. It also does not tell you the farm, variety, altitude, processing method, roast level, or sensory quality unless those are separately disclosed.
Why, then, is Arabica associated with specialty coffee? Part of the answer is sensory potential and market history. Arabica encompasses many varieties capable of high cup quality, while the specialty sector built its grading, sourcing, and consumer language heavily around Arabica. But the useful conclusion is not “Arabica equals good.” It is that species establishes a biological starting point, while quality emerges from the entire production and preparation chain.
Robusta coffee in depth: more caffeine, broader diversity, and a changing quality image
Coffea canephora is an accepted species native across a broad part of tropical Africa. Robusta is its best-known commercial name. The species has extensive genetic diversity, which matters because the sensory and agronomic properties of one Robusta population or cultivar should not be generalized to all others.
The caffeine difference between Arabica and Robusta is real at the bean level. In a study of green coffees from multiple countries, C. canephora had consistently higher caffeine than C. arabica. Comparative research also finds species-related differences in chlorogenic acids and related chemistry; a 2019 Food Research International analysis used chlorogenic-acid profiles to differentiate green Arabica and Robusta samples.
Higher caffeine is one reason Robusta can contribute more bitterness, but bitterness is not a caffeine meter. Roast chemistry, chlorogenic-acid breakdown products, extraction, concentration, temperature, and individual sensory sensitivity all influence perceived bitterness. A dark, highly extracted Arabica can taste more intense or bitter than a lighter Robusta preparation even though the species-level caffeine tendency runs the other way.
Robusta is common in instant coffee and espresso blends, where it can contribute body, intensity, crema, and a different flavor structure. High-quality Robusta also exists. The old habit of using “Robusta” as a synonym for cheap or defective coffee confuses species with production quality.
Liberica coffee in depth: a rare species with a distinct crop profile
Kew accepts Coffea liberica as a distinct species. Under the 2025 genomic revision, its indigenous range is more narrowly defined in upper West Africa than older, broader taxonomic treatments suggested. That matters because some records previously assigned to Liberica actually belong to C. dewevrei or related material.
Liberica differs agronomically from Excelsa as well as from Arabica and Robusta. The 2025 Nature Plants study reports that cultivated Liberica is mostly associated with low elevations, roughly 10–500 meters in documented production settings, and warm, wet conditions. It also has thicker parchment and very large fruits and seeds relative to Excelsa, traits that affect processing and green-coffee outturn.
The most striking correction concerns market share. The often-repeated claim that Liberica and Excelsa together supply 1–2% of world coffee is not current. Davis and colleagues traced that figure to historical production data and estimated current combined Liberica and Excelsa production at probably under 1,000 metric tons. They calculated that even 1,000 metric tons would equal only about 0.01% of the roughly 10 million metric tons of Arabica-plus-Robusta exports reported for 2024. The rare coffees are therefore much rarer than many consumer guides imply.
Excelsa coffee in depth: why the taxonomy changed
Excelsa is one of the clearest examples of why coffee information needs scientific updating. Many pages still describe it simply as a variety of Liberica. That reflects an older taxonomy, not the current evidence. The 2025 genomic study combined genomic data with morphology and geographic distribution and recognized C. liberica, C. dewevrei, and C. klainei as separate species. Plants of the World Online now accepts C. dewevrei and explicitly lists names such as C. liberica var. dewevrei and C. excelsa as synonyms or older treatments.
Excelsa also occupies a different agronomic envelope in the available evidence. The same study reports cultivated C. dewevrei principally at mid elevations of about 500–1,200 meters in examples from Africa, with somewhat cooler and less rainy conditions than documented lowland Liberica cultivation. Its seeds are generally smaller and its parchment thinner than Liberica’s, which can improve outturn during processing.
A further complication is hybridization. The 2026 genomic follow-up analyzed 7,618 SNPs across 113 accessions and confirmed that C. liberica and C. dewevrei have hybridized readily in cultivation, producing fertile progeny with varying genomic admixture. That means some farmed material sold under a familiar trade name can be genetically more complicated than a four-box consumer chart suggests.
Arabica vs. Robusta vs. Liberica vs. Excelsa: the differences that matter
Botanical identity
Arabica, Robusta, Liberica, and Excelsa are not four roast styles. Arabica is C. arabica; Robusta is the trade name for C. canephora; Liberica is C. liberica; and Excelsa corresponds to C. dewevrei under current taxonomy. They sit inside a genus with 133 accepted species in Kew’s current backbone.
Market availability
Arabica and Robusta are the global market. World Coffee Research focuses its global variety catalog on these two species because they are the two in wide cultivation worldwide, while the 2026 Liberica–Excelsa genomic paper puts their combined dominance above 99.99% of world coffee. Liberica and Excelsa are niche crops whose availability is regional and specialty-oriented.
Caffeine
Robusta generally has more caffeine in the bean than Arabica. The evidence for precise, consumer-friendly caffeine rankings of Liberica and Excelsa is much thinner, especially after the newer taxonomic separation of C. liberica and C. dewevrei. It is more accurate to say that Robusta has a well-established higher-caffeine tendency relative to Arabica and to avoid pretending that every rare-coffee lot has a fixed percentage.
Flavor and sensory tendencies
Species can shift the probability of particular sensory outcomes, but it is not a flavor destiny. Arabica often supports greater perceived acidity and a wide aromatic range; Robusta often produces more bitterness, astringency, and heavy body in comparative designs. Current Liberica research describes bold tropical-fruit tendencies, while current Excelsa research describes dark dried fruit, chocolate, and spice. Processing, roast, brew, and serving temperature can strengthen, suppress, or reorganize those tendencies.
Growing environment and crop traits
The species differ in climate adaptation, plant architecture, fruit and seed morphology, disease relationships, yield traits, and breeding potential. Those differences are not just trivia for farmers: they influence which coffees can remain viable under changing temperature and rainfall patterns. The renewed scientific interest in Liberica and Excelsa is partly driven by their potential to broaden coffee’s climate options, not simply by novelty in the cup.
Which coffee bean has the most caffeine?
If the comparison is Arabica versus Robusta at the bean-species level, Robusta is the higher-caffeine answer. Multi-origin green-bean analysis found higher caffeine in C. canephora than in C. arabica across the sampled accessions. That is a robust species-level pattern.
If the question is “Which cup gives me the most caffeine?”, species alone is insufficient. Total caffeine per serving depends on how much coffee was used, the Arabica/Robusta composition, grind, water contact, extraction, beverage volume, and serving convention. A study of 104 espresso coffees purchased in Scotland, Italy, and Spain found 48–317 mg of caffeine per serving. The spread is a useful reminder that a beverage name is not a fixed dose.
This is also why “strong coffee” needs a definition. Strong can mean intense flavor, a high coffee-to-water concentration, more dissolved material per milliliter, more caffeine per milliliter, more total caffeine in the serving, or simply a subjective impression. These variables often correlate imperfectly and sometimes diverge.
Which coffee bean type tastes best?
There is no scientifically universal best-tasting species. Preference depends on the coffee, the roast and brew, prior experience, sensory sensitivity, learned expectations, and the context in which the drink is evaluated. Even in a controlled Arabica–Robusta cold-brew study with measurable sensory and chemical differences, consumer preference did not differ between the tested beverages.
A useful way to choose is by tendencies rather than rankings. If you enjoy aromatic complexity, lively acidity, florals, fruit, or transparent single-origin expression, Arabica offers the broadest mainstream selection. If you enjoy heavier body, bitterness, high intensity, and the flavor structure common in many espresso blends, Robusta is worth exploring. If you want something genuinely outside the Arabica–Robusta mainstream, carefully sourced Liberica can offer tropical-fruit-driven profiles and Excelsa can offer dried-fruit, chocolate, and spice characteristics in the currently described material.
Then look beyond species. Two Arabicas can differ more dramatically from each other than a simple species chart predicts because they come from different varieties, farms, elevations, processing methods, roast profiles, and brew recipes. Choosing only by species is like choosing wine only by saying “grapes.” It is a useful first category, not a complete sensory description.
How coffee species changes flavor — and what species cannot tell you
Coffee flavor begins with physical and chemical properties of the seed, so species matters. Genetic differences influence caffeine, chlorogenic acids, sugars, lipids, precursors, seed structure, and agronomic behavior. But the cup is produced through a chain: plant genetics interact with environment and farming; post-harvest processing transforms the fruit and seed environment; roasting creates and destroys aroma and taste compounds; grinding and extraction determine which compounds enter the beverage; temperature and texture affect what reaches the senses.
That chain explains why blanket statements such as “Arabica is sweet and Robusta is bitter” are useful only as rough orientation. Comparative cold-brew research found clear species differences, yet brewing conditions also changed composition and perception. The right interpretation is that species influences the sensory probability distribution while preparation selects one outcome from it.
The same principle protects against another common mistake: confusing flavor intensity with pharmacological strength. A coffee can taste darker, smokier, or more bitter because of roast and extraction while containing less total caffeine than a larger, milder-tasting serving. Sensory strength is perceived experience; caffeine dose is a measurable chemical quantity.
How labels, expectations, and experience change what coffee tastes like
Coffee has objective chemical and physical properties, yet the final sensory experience is constructed by a human perceptual system that also uses expectation, learning, and context. This does not make flavor imaginary. It means that the brain combines sensory input with information about what it expects the input to be.
A particularly direct 2026 experiment asked 180 specialty-coffee consumers to evaluate the same coffee paired with three different processing labels: no processing information, “fermentation,” and “carbonic maceration.” The labels changed expectations and influenced sensory and hedonic judgments; the “fermentation” label led participants to expect more acidity and lower liking, while “carbonic maceration” increased perceived novelty and expected price without lowering acceptance. Because the liquid coffee was held constant while the description changed, the study isolates a genuine expectation effect.
Information can also affect value judgments over time. In a study of 119 consumers evaluating regular and Fairtrade-labeled coffees, ethical information and sensory exposure changed willingness to pay and interacted with product experience. Together, these studies show why words such as “100% Arabica,” origin names, processing terms, rarity claims, and producer stories can shape expectations before the first sip.
The practical implication is not to distrust labels. It is to separate two questions: what is objectively different about the coffee, and what did the information lead you to expect? Blind comparison can be useful when you want to learn your sensory preferences; informed tasting can be useful when provenance, processing, or agricultural context is part of what you value.
Common myths about coffee bean types
Myth: there are only four species of coffee
The four-name list is a commercial shorthand. Kew currently recognizes 133 accepted Coffea species. Most never enter ordinary global coffee commerce.
Myth: Excelsa is simply a variety of Liberica
That was a long-used classification, and it remains common online. Current evidence supports Excelsa as C. dewevrei, distinct from C. liberica. The 2025 Nature Plants study and Kew’s current taxonomic backbone are the relevant updated references.
Myth: Liberica and Excelsa make up 1–2% of world coffee
The modern evidence says the figure is far smaller. The 2025 taxonomic study explicitly identifies the 1–2% claim as outdated and estimates current combined production at probably under 1,000 metric tons.
Myth: Arabica automatically means high quality
Arabica is a species, not a grade. Excellent and poor coffees can both be Arabica. Variety, agronomy, harvesting, processing, sorting, storage, roasting, freshness, and brewing all contribute to quality.
Myth: Robusta automatically means low quality
Robusta has different chemistry and sensory tendencies, but species does not determine whether farming, processing, roasting, or brewing was careful. Quality assessment and species identification answer different questions.
Myth: darker or more bitter coffee always has more caffeine
Perceived bitterness and roast intensity are not reliable caffeine measurements. Even beverages sold under the same category can vary enormously in caffeine per serving, as shown by the 48–317 mg range in the espresso survey.
How to choose coffee beans at a store or roaster
Start with the experience you want rather than with a hierarchy of species. If you want a familiar specialty-coffee spectrum with the widest range of origins, varieties, and processing styles, Arabica gives you the largest selection. If you want more bitterness, body, crema, or a higher-caffeine species contribution, look for Robusta or an Arabica–Robusta blend. If you want a rare-species tasting experience, seek a clearly identified Liberica or Excelsa from a roaster that states origin and processing rather than relying on generic rarity claims.
Next, read the rest of the label. Species answers only one question. Variety or cultivar can refine the genetic identity; country, region, farm, and altitude describe provenance; washed, natural, honey, or fermentation terminology describes processing; roast level tells you how the green coffee was thermally developed; roast date tells you about freshness. Tasting notes are a roaster’s sensory description, not added flavors unless the product specifically says flavoring was added.
For caffeine, do not infer dose from taste alone. A Robusta-rich blend may raise the caffeine potential, but the amount in your cup still depends on the recipe and serving. For flavor, use species as a starting hypothesis and let the actual coffee decide. Repeated tasting is how preference becomes more precise.
Coffee species, preference, and learned taste
People do not encounter coffee as neutral measuring instruments. Repeated exposure changes familiarity; brewing skill changes the samples available for learning; social settings attach memories and expectations to drinks; labels make some features more salient. Someone who has mostly experienced low-quality Robusta may learn “Robusta means harsh,” while someone who has mostly experienced carefully processed specialty Robusta can acquire a different expectation. The same is true of very light Arabica roasts, dark commercial blends, or rare Liberica.
This is why a preference should not be converted into a personality claim. Liking black coffee, Arabica, Robusta, dark roast, or unusual species does not diagnose character traits. Coffee preference is better understood as an interaction among sensory biology, exposure, culture, learned associations, current goals, and the actual product.
Frequently asked questions
What are the four main types of coffee beans?
The four names most commonly used in consumer coffee guides are Arabica, Robusta, Liberica, and Excelsa. In current scientific naming, they correspond to Coffea arabica, Coffea canephora, Coffea liberica, and Coffea dewevrei.
Are there really only four kinds of coffee plants?
No. The genus Coffea currently contains 133 accepted species in Kew’s Plants of the World Online. The four-name list refers to commercially relevant coffee categories, especially the two globally dominant crops and two rare crops.
Which coffee bean has the most caffeine?
Between the two globally dominant species, Robusta generally contains more caffeine than Arabica. For a prepared drink, total caffeine depends on the bean mix, dose, extraction, and serving size, so species alone cannot tell you the final milligrams in the cup.
Is Arabica better than Robusta?
“Better” is a preference or quality judgment, not a taxonomic fact. Arabica dominates specialty coffee and offers an enormous range of high-quality coffees, while Robusta has distinct sensory, agronomic, and chemical characteristics and can also be produced at high quality. Compare actual lots rather than treating the species name as a score.
Is Excelsa the same as Liberica?
Under current taxonomy, no. Excelsa corresponds to Coffea dewevrei, while Liberica is Coffea liberica. Older sources often place Excelsa within Liberica because that classification was used for many years. Genomic evidence published in 2025 supports treating them as separate species.
What does “100% Arabica” mean?
It is a species-composition claim: the coffee is represented as Arabica rather than a blend containing Robusta or another species. It does not by itself guarantee specialty grade, a particular flavor, freshness, origin, or careful processing.
Are espresso beans a different type of coffee bean?
No. Espresso is a brewing method and, in retail language, “espresso beans” usually means a coffee or roast profile marketed for espresso. The underlying coffee can be Arabica, Robusta, a blend of the two, or another coffee species.
Are roast levels the same as coffee bean types?
No. Species describes the plant. Roast level describes what happens later when green coffee is heated. Light, medium, and dark roast are not botanical categories.
Why are Liberica and Excelsa so hard to find?
Their global production is extremely small compared with Arabica and Robusta, and their value chains are more regional. The 2025 Nature Plants analysis estimates combined Liberica and Excelsa production at probably less than 1,000 metric tons, while Arabica and Robusta operate at a vastly larger global scale.
Which type should a beginner try first?
Start with two or three coffees that are different in controlled ways. A washed Arabica, an Arabica–Robusta blend or well-identified Robusta, and—if available—a traceable Liberica or Excelsa will teach more than memorizing flavor stereotypes. Brew them consistently, taste before reading every tasting note, then compare your experience with the label.
Conclusion: four useful coffee categories, a much larger botanical world
Arabica, Robusta, Liberica, and Excelsa are the four coffee-bean names consumers are most likely to encounter together, but they should be understood accurately. Arabica is Coffea arabica. Robusta is Coffea canephora. Liberica is Coffea liberica. Excelsa is Coffea dewevrei under current taxonomy. They differ in genetics, agronomy, chemistry, sensory tendencies, caffeine patterns, and market scale.
The species name is a powerful first piece of information, not a complete prediction of the cup. Variety, environment, post-harvest processing, roast, freshness, brewing, and expectation continue the story. Knowing the species helps you ask better questions; tasting the actual coffee tells you whether you like the answer.
Related Articles
• Arabica Coffee: What It Is, Taste, Caffeine, and Why People Prefer It — a species-level guide to Arabica, its taste, caffeine, and preference.
References
Babova, O., Occhipinti, A., & Maffei, M. E. (2016). Chemical partitioning and antioxidant capacity of green coffee (Coffea arabica and Coffea canephora) of different geographical origin. Phytochemistry, 123, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2016.01.016
Badmos, S., Lee, S.-H., & Kuhnert, N. (2019). Comparison and quantification of chlorogenic acids for differentiation of green Robusta and Arabica coffee beans. Food Research International, 126, 108544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108544
Carvalho, F. M., de Sousa, M. M. M., & Nadaleti, D. H. S. (2026). Label Information About Fermentation Processing Affects Consumers’ Sensory and Hedonic Judgements of Specialty Coffee. Foods, 15(8), 1287. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15081287
Davis, A. P., Shepherd-Clowes, A., Cheek, M., et al. (2025). Genomic data define species delimitation in Liberica coffee with implications for crop development and conservation. Nature Plants, 11, 1729–1738. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-025-02073-y
Davis, A. P., Shepherd-Clowes, A., Lee, K. W. T., Jitam, D. M., Clayre, A., Dashrath, A., & Viruel, J. (2026). Genomic elucidation of hybridization between Liberica and excelsa coffee and its implications for coffee crop development. Scientific Reports, 16, 22107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-49305-5
Kew Science. (2026). Coffea L. Plants of the World Online. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/325985-2
Kew Science. (2026). Coffea arabica L. Plants of the World Online. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/747038-1
Kew Science. (2026). Coffea canephora Pierre ex A.Froehner. Plants of the World Online. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/747068-1
Kew Science. (2026). Coffea dewevrei De Wild. & T.Durand. Plants of the World Online. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn%3Alsid%3Aipni.org%3Anames%3A747092-1
Kew Science. (2026). Coffea liberica W.Bull. Plants of the World Online. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn%3Alsid%3Aipni.org%3Anames%3A747169-1
Lange, C., Combris, P., Issanchou, S., & Schlich, P. (2015). Impact of information and in-home sensory exposure on liking and willingness to pay: The beginning of Fairtrade labeled coffee in France. Food Research International, 76(Pt 3), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.06.017
Ludwig, I. A., Mena, P., Calani, L., Cid, C., Del Rio, D., Lean, M. E. J., & Crozier, A. (2014). Variations in caffeine and chlorogenic acid contents of coffees: what are we drinking? Food & Function, 5(8), 1718–1726. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4FO00290C
Portela, C. da S., de Almeida, I. F., dos Reis, T. A. D., Hickmann, B. R. B., & Benassi, M. de T. (2022). Effects of brewing conditions and coffee species on the physicochemical characteristics, preference and dynamics of sensory attributes perception in cold brews. Food Research International, 151, 110860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110860
World Coffee Research. (2026). Arabica. Coffee Varieties Catalog. https://varieties.worldcoffeeresearch.org/arabica
World Coffee Research. (2026). What’s included. Coffee Varieties Catalog. https://varieties.worldcoffeeresearch.org/about-the-catalog/whats-included