Is a non-astringent American-Asian hybrid persimmon within reach?


I’m an admitted amateur, so my modus operandi is (1) read to learn, and (2) discuss to explore and test. Being an amateur, I try to provide scientific research to support my assertions. And I hope that others will do the same.

<< What allows you to say that JT02 and JBT06 are hybrids and that they would have the possibility of making PCNA hybrids? These hybrids might as well not carry the PCNA genes, right? >>

We know that Taishu must have 6 NA genes. So JT-02 must have 3 NA genes. If there is a back-cross of JT-02 x Taishu, something like 5% of the offspring will have a full complement of 6 NA genes. This is not merely my estimate, it is supported by published scientific reports that I posted.

<< On what scientific basis do you extrapolate results on pure Asian trials for hybrids. What allows you to say how the PCNA genes associated with the diospyros virginiana genes will be expressed? >>

I have freely cautioned that Kaki NA genes might not work as hoped in a Kaki x DV hybrid. In a separate thread, I cautioned that it seems unlikely that Kaki PV genes will produce non-astringency in a Kaki x DV hybrid.

<< The easiest solution would probably be a cPCNA x the Rosseyanka 18 male mutation. . . . But they will offer cPCNA pollinator males which this time can be used to pollinate virginiana. Simple no. >>

I think you answered your own question here. A C-PPCNA x DV hybrid might work but we can’t try.

BTW, your silence about details doesn’t hurt me except symbolically because I’m not actually going to do any breeding. But it does hurt other members of the forum who might avoid wasted effort with better information.


Translated, I don’t have a horse in this race, but I intend to tell all the jockeys how to ride!

I started a breeding program for chickens 10 years ago to introgress the blue egg gene into a Silver Laced Wyandotte background. I have good looking chickens with SLW phenotype that lay blue eggs. It took 10 years to get there. Similar timelines are needed for persimmon breeding. Don’t just talk, grow some trees!


I don’t see it as a race. It’s a journey. If anybody reaches the destination, we all win. If more than one reach it, we all win. But like everyone else, breeder or not, I do have a stake in the outcome. I’m not going to live another 50 years, and I’d like to grow a non-astringent hybrid in my remaining lifetime. I have no time for false starts and cut-de-sacs.

Meanwhile, it does none of us any good if any one of us, breeder or not, points us in the wrong direction. My questions arise when I think that’s what’s happening: For example, Dax mis-identified two offspring of Nikita’s Gift as offspring of Josephine (DV) x Taishu (J-PCNA). That might lead one of us to expect (incorrectly) that these varieties contain the J-PCNA gene. Cliff loosely (if technically correctly) referred to two crosses of Costata x Rossey 2 as PVNA. That might lead one of us to expect (incorrectly) that these varieties contain a J-PVNA gene. And so on.

Re PCNAs, the reality is that Japanese breeders are almost certainly already working on a JT-02 x Taishu backcross, complementing their many other crosses and backcrosses of PCAs x PCNAs. And Chinese breeders are almost certainly working on crossed with C-PCNA varieties. So we’ll know the answers relatively soon.

Re PVNAs, Asian breeders view dark-fleshed persimmons as inferior to PCNAs. So hybridization to produce PVNA varieties is likely to remain a wide-open arena.

Brown University is a half hour trip by public transportation from Bristol RI. There one can obtain excellent answers to all the questions one might have about hybrid persimmons, and probably establish a collaboration with a faculty member – albeit not all in one trip. I would start by writing a single non-technical paragraph explaining what you wish to to accomplish, with your name and email address. Then hand carry a printout of it to the office of the Dean of Biology, and ask the clerk to put it in their inbox. If you are not invited to wait or make an appointment, then go back in two weeks and inquire about the outcome.


You don’t prove anything.
For Taishu you mean 3 NA gene… 3 PCNA, 3 PVNA? On this breeding series, the PCNA x PVNA crosses were made… what is the statistical influence? have you taken into account that there will be 85% males?
I think taking everything into account will be closer to the 1-2% seed that will offer some and that means having the right starting material. Talking does not make progress and it is better to have more openness and seek the right wood.

You criticize as usual the possibility that Cliff is a PVNA! ok but to draw this conclusion you are going to give us the varieties used by the Russians to create Rosseyanka and thus show us that neither Rosseyanka, nor rossey, nor Rossey f2 are carriers of the PVNA genes. Then you can argue. When you’ve done is create a few, you can say that what Cliff says doesn’t prove anything, neither does his photo…
brief fact and you can dispute facts.

Nowhere in any publication has anyone proven anything about persimmon astringent genes – it is all speculation based on analog chemistry. Consequently no one in this thread including you and @jrd51 should be discussing astringent genes – only astringent traits.

I’ll further point out out that neither of you have a clear idea of what a gene is, and thus that word should not appear in any of your discussions. I can go on to show that many published horticultural researchers do not either and thus you should not feel isolated in that category.

<< You don’t prove anything. >>

Prove? This is not a courtroom. I’m just making a suggestion as to how we can get to a desired goal. And some warnings about possible dead-ends.

<< For Taishu you mean 3 NA gene… 3 PCNA, 3 PVNA? >>

Sorry, I did not think I had to spell it out. We all know (and have stated here repeatedly) that Taishu is PCNA. So obviously 3 NA genes. Are you just being deliberately difficult?

<< it is better to have more openness and seek the right wood. >>

Yes, that’s why I kept asking you how you managed to acquire the scions that you showed off earlier. You were anything but open. You finally made a revealing comment, then quickly deleted it.

<< You criticize as usual the possibility that Cliff is a PVNA! ok but to draw this conclusion you are going to give us the varieties used by the Russians to create Rosseyanka and thus show us that neither Rosseyanka, nor rossey, nor Rossey f2 are carriers of the PVNA genes.>>

This is the direct route. You know that I have asked forum members for more detail, if they have it, on the varieties used in the Ukrainian breeding program. No one is able to provide any; evidently the details are secret and/or there has been so much open pollination that no one knows what happened. One apparently well-informed comment indicated that as the focus of the program was to develop more cold-hardy varieties, the Russians/Ukrainians used reportedly cold-tolerant PCAs rather than more tender PCNAs.

It is reported that Rosseyanka (F1) is the product of a cross between an unnamed Virginiana x an unnamed Kaki. The DV is apparently a Ukrainian seedling identified as #213. The Kaki is also apparently an unnamed seedling identified as Form 48 and/or Form 185. This Rosseyanka (F1) crossed produced a male that was then back-crossed to DV, producing Rosseynka (F2). It is reported that most further hybrids used a male (F2) that is product of this cross.

So Rosseyanka 1 is 50% Virginiana and 50% Kaki. Rosseyanka 2 is 75% Virginiana and 25% Kaki. Of course, Virginiana has no PVNA genes. The Kaki may. Given available information, I can’t know.

Then there is an indirect route. Rosseyanka 1 & 2 have been used to produce MANY offspring. To my knowledge, none of them has displayed any form of early non-astringency. None of them has displayed consistent pollination-variance of the color of the flesh.

Moreover, my understanding is that David Lavergne produced crosses of various Kakis (Saiyo, Honan Red, Great Wall) x a F2 Rosseyanka male. Any one of these Kakis MIGHT carry a PV gene, increasing the odds that any hypothetical PV genes in Rosseyanka might reveal themselves. Yet none of the offspring is reported to be PVNA.

I believe it’s fair to say that IF Rossyanka carries any PV genes, they should/would have been evident in other offspring. Rosseyanka was selected in 1958, more than 65 years ago. Why did the PV trait wait until now?

None of this is absolute proof. But it seems to stacks the odds against the appearance of a PVNA offspring of a Rosseyanka cross. In this particular case, such an outcome would require (1) the presence of PV genes in Costata, which is PCA not PVA or PVNA; and (2) the presence of PV genes in Rossey 2, which is not impossible but seems very unlikely.

1 Like

@Richard – I accept your point about genes. That’s why I suggested that the gene (like the force of gravity) is in this instance a construct meant to explain observations. Things happen in PCNA persimmons AS IF there is a PCNA “gene” Or at least an A gene which maybe present or absent. We know that genes exist in all species but we haven’t yet observed this gene in this instance. But I don’t want to argue about that.

My practical problem is how to talk about genotype vs phenotype. Imagine six persimmons varieties with respectively 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 J-PCNA genes. Five of the 6 will be astringent, one of the six will be non-astringent. How do I talk about the 5 without using the word “gene”?

Yeah, I know Brown. One of my kids, his wife and two (grand)daughters live a few blocks away. I have a good friend at the Med School. But I don’t think I’d want to distract anybody with this stuff unless I bumped into them at a party.

In this case, “allele” is more accurate than “gene”. I think Richard will understand >:-)>>>

OK, I can live with that. “Allele” basically means “gene variant,” no? So like the gene is called something like Ast and the alleles are A and a?

I agree and it is for this reason that I react to a person who makes affirmations. Or criticism of facts, when he says he knows nothing.
I just read his answer on NA, it’s laughable.
I have no need to learn or comment on this subject.
And if I had the wish to do this project, unlike jrd51, I already have all the material.
Whether Luo tian tian shi, the two PVNA hybrids (including 1 that makes male flowers) Male hybrids. I am transplanting Taishu, Taiten…etc this year.
And to achieve that I didn’t go on a long, pointless tirade questioning Cliff’s work, or whatever. When we say we don’t know, we were silent and we don’t make theories that don’t hold up. Luo tian tian shi I’ve had it for 3 years, you weren’t even looking then.

I’m not criticizing the words of others, just the fact that a person makes assertions, asks questions about everything and is obviously unable to answer and understand the complexity of the subject.
Contrary to the advanced statistics, with the material I have in the garden, I can produce 25% PCNA hybrids in F1.
I have no lessons to give. But this way of challenging everyone should be less assertive when you have nothing in your hands and know nothing about it. It’s simple I think.

1 Like

You’re talking NA genes.
Without taking into account the NA difference coming from PCNA or PVNA. But we know that the Japanese NA is degrading. That to compensate for this degradation they crossed PCNA with PVNA. Taishu is part of this generation and you cannot say that Taishu wears 6 PCNA. it may also have PVNA.
The result on the descendants will be different.

On the Russian selection… it’s easy to understand. It is enough to study the documents of the Russian trials. The collection according to the years is well documented. As I said Zengimaru and resistant to cold and pollen was used.

Costata is a PCA, IK. But nothing allows you without a cariotype to say that he does not carry the PVNA gene… especially since here again you do not know the parents.
In short you put in right without foundations. That’s what I blame you for. This approximate dispute based on nothing.

The “se” gene in corn was discovered in a variety named Narrow Leaf Evergreen. In the course of making crosses, someone made a mistake. They assigned the “se” gene on the same chromosome as the “su” gene. Results were published and for a time breeding errors were made. Corn breeders made crosses with the understanding the two genes were linked. There was a LOT of confusion when someone proved the “se” gene was on an entirely different chromosome and therefore segregated independently of “su”. Why is this relevant? We have a very strong tendency to trust that anything published and peer reviewed must be correct and accurate. In reality, nearly 50% of such publications wind up being proven wrong. In some very specific areas, papers rely on each other to such an extent that nearly 100% of the published information is WRONG. Relevance? When we read articles linked on this and other threads, please keep in mind that the article is very likely to have serious errors.


What do you expect me to do when you spread such misinformation?

Yes, Japanese breeders found it very difficult to improve PCNA varieties with PCNA x PCNA crosses because the gene pool is restricted. So in the 1990s they changed strategies,

But no, they did NOT generally cross PCNA x PVNA. Rather, they crossed PCNA x PCA and then back-crossed, so PCNA x [PCNA x PCA]. To my knowledge, no new varieties have been released as a result of this approach.

Taishu, released IN 1995, is NOT a product of either a PCNA x PVNA cross or a PCNA x PCA cross. It’s all PCNA. According to publish reports from the Japanese breeders, its female parent is Fuyu; it’s male parent is a cross of Jiro x Okitsu-15, which is itself a cross of Okugosho x Hanagosho. All of these ancestors are well-known PCNA varieties. There isn’t a PVNA among them.

It is still remotely possible that Taishu carries 1-2 PVNA genes. Fuyu can display some PV when seeded. Maybe someone can comment whether they have every observed pollination variance in Taishu fruit.

The results of Taishu’s performance in persimmon breeding also show no hint of pollination variance (PV).

  1. Korean breeders have used Taishu as the male parent in many crosses. I am aware of 7 released varieties with a PCNA female and Taishu as the male parent. All are classified PCNA by the breeders.

[One of these releases (Wonmi) is a cross of Fuyu x Taishu, hence 75% Fuyu. As noted, it is PCNA, not PVNA.]

  1. Japanese breeders also used Taishu but not as extensively. I am aware of 1 released variety with a PCNA female and Taishu as the male parent. This variety (Taiho) is also classified PCNA by the breeders.

  2. On the other hand, I am aware of 2 released varieties with a PVNA female and Taishu as the male parent. But neither of these varieties (Taiten, Taigetsu) is PVNA. Both are PCA.

In the aggregate these breeding results strongly suggest that Taishu has no PVNA genes.

p.s. It also occurred to me that in addition to the many crosses of Kaki x Rosseyanka by the Russians/Ukranians and by David Lavergne, Cliff England also grows a ton of crosses. Reviewing his inventory, I noticed crosses of Rosseyanka with Saiyo (many!), Rojo, Thor, and Gwang Yang. I don’t think anyone has ever reported PVNA or even PVA fruit from any of these crosses.

1 Like

I’ll be inviting all of you to a steak dinner at my house this coming fall. You guys bring the persimmons. They better be good! :rofl::rofl::rofl:


Tony – One further thing to think about. Reportedly, these are two sibling trees, planted in the same hole. One produces astringent fruit, the other produces PVNA fruit. By itself, that seems a leap. PV seems to be an additive trait, so a lot of PV alleles (!) means PVNA, a few PV alleles meanie PVA, no PV alleles means PCA. If one sibling is PVNA, it seems the other should be no worse than PVA. But OK, anything can happen in the gene casino.

So what happened? We all know how chaotic the inventory of a nursery can be. Cliff’'s is no exception. Maybe the PVNA variety just got mislabeled. That seems a more likely explanation than a PVNA offspring from a PCA Kaki x PCA Hybrid cross.

Not odd. Just genetics.

1 Like


There should be no mixed up because Cliff PVNA hybrid grew in Vermont by Buzz and fruited for him and that is a pure Z4A to Z5A. NO KAKI PVNA can handle this zone except for hybrid persimmons. I can’t even grow the hardy Tam Kam in ground here in Omaha Z5. They are all potted.


1 Like

Fair enough. I agree that no Kaki would survive in the ground in VT.

To be clear, was the fruit in VT PVNA? If so, how pollinated? Thanks.