If you were to set out to determine what various wildly different, and sometimes very similar apple cultivars are.
Let’s say you DNA sequence a niche heirloom apple you are told is named “Red One”. Until you have evidence to the contrary, you’ve essentially no choice but to think it’s anything other than that. Until a few months later when you’ve sequenced half a dozen other examples all claiming to be “Red One”. They all match each other but the original one is different than any of them. Would it matter which one you sequenced first?
I can’t imagine that the WSU folks can do much other than “majority rules”. Perhaps on occasion they may get a “My great great grandfather is who discovered cultivar ‘Red Two’ and named it and entered it into a competition which gained some nationwide attention. The original tree is dead but my grandfather grafted multiple new trees from it which still produce on the 6th generation family farm.” In that scenario, perhaps they’d lean towards what could be the sequencing minority…
I don’t think they’re saying any specific heirloom cultivar is the same as some other.. Seems more like Horne Creek received some trees or scions which were mislabeled and they didn’t realize. Until DNA sequencing revealed to them…
They are and that is the issue. The objections are not by those who reject science, but by those is expect the highest level of inquiry before arriving at a consequential conclusion.
A $50 basic test is very crude, but serves a purpose for the public. A sniper rifle is not needed to take out a squirrel 10’ away. If the target cannot be hit with the tools that are affordable and available and no sound conclusions are made, use footnotes. This is where they went off the rails. When dealing with the sport mutation and one tree being the parent of 10 cultivars may require that expensive sniper rifle to hit the mark.
Simply sending stuff out for DNA testing is not completely informing. Sometimes talking to people is necessary. I asked Mr. Parker of Parkers Orchard three times if his Limbertwig was a Brushy and he replied no, it’s a Limbertwig. I’ve learned recently a simple Limbertwig generally refers to the OFLT. All of the other growers stated specifically after repeated questioning their smaller Limbertwig look-alike was the Brushy Mt. Limbertwig. This Fall, I will continue my interview with follow-up questions concerning the dates each area orchard was establish. To the best of my knowledge, Parkers is the oldest. This all points to the Brushy being sport mutation of the OFLT. I’ve read reports that the OFLT and Levering are both tetraploid. I don’t think tetraploids can reproduce from seed. This may be why the Red Limbertwig is the parent of quite a few apples and the OFLT is an unknown.
@Richard probably would have a field day with this. I believe he is firmly that they are not completley sequencing apples and instead looking for certain fingerprints, something that is of course, not really dispositive unless they have already sequenced everything and determined those finger prints are unique
So sounds like they never intended to claim that Cultivar 1 == Cultivar 2. Only that what they’ve been growing for years, and possibly selling trees/scions of.. That they knew as “Cultivar 1”, was actually “Cultivar 2”.
I think that an important reason for many people to grow these kind of apples, is that they are part of our cultural heritage. A certain apple that was grown in a certain region, known under the name of x, rediscovered by so and so. Why are people so keen on getting DNA testing done on these.
Why perform such a “test”? I have ~50 trees, essentially all were from scions from trades. The one labeled “Fameuse” that I have that a particular user sent me.. Is it truly Fameuse/Snow or could there have been an accidental mislabel? Which is apparently what happened to Horne Creek…
Unless the DNA tests can pick up sport mutations, it will not achieve the results Horne Creek wants. The WSU tests simply are not rigorous enough. Yes, they can make the distinction between a Macintosh and a Spitz, but that’s not what the tests are being used for.
HC is also sending in mislabeled as if they’re the real deal. Thankfully some of these such as the White Limbertwig is stuck in the accessory panel. Their Hall submission is also suspect.
More folk who are very knowledgeable with very specific varieties need to do more lifting and send samples. I plan to do just that.
So according to that Honeycrisp’s DNA confirmed parents are Keepsake and MN1627.
Per that readme tab:
Parent 1
Preferred name of first known parent of the cultivar, consistent with or determined by DNA fingerprinting; not necessarily the mother, although when maternal parent’s name is known it is placed here
Parent 2
Preferred name of second known parent of the cultivar, consistent with or determined by DNA fingerprinting; not necessarily the father, although when paternal parent’s name is known it is placed here
And since the Triploidy column is blank they’re apparently indicating it’s a Diploid.
A few months back there was some discussion about Kentucky Limbertwig which was listed on the Accessory Profiles tab. The parents listed were both discovered at dates after KL was named and propagated. I emailed Cameron and he advised that cultivars on this tab are “perliminary” as they’ve perhaps only ever received a single leaf sample to sequence. So if they receive a single sample from a single person saying that “to their knowledge” this is the “Kentucky Limbertwig” apple cultivar.. They have no way to know if that person is correct or not. If at some latter point they’ve received samples from a number of unrelated people all saying they are that same named variety.. If the DNA matches for all of them, they’d then likely move it to the RefPan-US tab.
I thought they had removed KL but looks like it’s still there, with those impossible parents.
Perhaps if a few more people submitted “Kentucky Limbertwig” leaves for sequencing they’d get an accurate fingerprint of it. And perhaps change the name of this one to “unknown” or similar…
There isn’t much information. I’m sending in a Royal LT for the more expensive full test. It will take 8-9 months to get the results for it and the Dixie Red Delight since the full test takes much longer. I will share the results of both. I don’t believe the Royal is related to the others.
I’m of the opinion the Winesap DNA is all up in the Limbertwig DNA.
Good possibility.. For Winesap they have yet to sequence anything to reveal either of it’s parents but do have this note:
Has several triploid offspring (e.g., Stayman Winesap, Turley, Black Twig) that inherited the entire genome of Winesap (plus half that of their specific fathers)
In addition to that, NAFEX shows the Ark being Winesap x Red Limbertwig.
Jason told me back in the Winter the Turley, Red Royal LT, Myers Royal LT were all the same. While this is clearly debatable, it suggests they’re so closely related, WSU tests cannot distinguish between the three.
The Black Limbertwig is apparently so closely related to the Winesap that HC is now lumping them together as the same apple.
Phenotype’s matter. Folks were growing improved seedlings and mutations over parents. Interesting Science rushes to jettison naming conventions; yet bitterly patents and protects their club apples.
I mean Hey! Cosmic Crisp is just another Enterprise apple by their methodology.
