Four New SuperSour Rootstocks for Improved Production of Sweet Orange in a Huanglongbing Environment
Ah, seems like they’ve got data in on seedling uniformity for SuperSour 2 now. It’s a pity it has high uniformity.
I wonder why this write up dropped SuperSour 1, I seem to recall it had decent performance during previous evaluations.
Nothing new to report.
FYI, SuperSour 1, SuperSour 2, and SuperSour 3 were released the same year. All three were involved in various trials together.
This report does mention SuperSour 2 and 3 extensively, hence why I find it surprising there is no mention of SuperSour 1, and it is not listed among the new rootstocks available through the Florida budwood program.
Even if there is nothing new to report, as you assert, some note as to why the inaugural member of the series was dropped from trials would merit mention.
FYI, I’m in the HLB program.
I’d be curious to know in what capacity as I’ve not seen your name in any of the papers from the SuperSour program. Granted, I totally could have overlooked it. You coauther anything with Kim Bowman or Ute Albrecht?
Do you know what the HLB program is?
Perhaps you could deign to answer my question?
I’ll take that as a “no”.
I asked first. 
So I’ll take that as a no too. Weird that you feel comfortable making claims about trials you yourself didn’t participate in. In my book that’s called dishonesty, but to each their own.
I made no such claim.
It would have been much more productive to simply give a thorough answer in the first place, if you actually know anything about the current state of that rootstock program, but instead you gave a vague semi-defensive retort that didn’t explain anything, and then doubled down with a vague (intentionally?) Implicit claim that your answer was based on some kind of knowledge you have obtained by virtue of your involvement with some “HLB program” (of which there are many in the world!).
And yet I was dealing with someone who starts out with “FYI …”. No need for that kind of condescending speech here.
FYI, it’s not usually considered condescending to use “FYI.”
It seemed like a very valid question (why they seem to be ignoring one of the original releases in this new update), and “nothing new to report” didn’t really address that question.
Was it nothing new to report because they have decided to stop testing it? Or because the tests continue to show similar results? Or because they will be releasing results about that one in a separate report? The reason it was omitted seems important here.