According to the labels, Cliff produced the reported hybrids roughly 10 years ago. “Hokkaido” was the presumed male parent, so technically I should have written DV x Hokkaido. We have no way of knowing whether your 20-year old Hokkaido and Cliff’s 10-year old Hokkaido are the same variety.
I’d be interested to know who else has Hokkaido other than you, Cliff and Bass.
Here’s a link to our updated list in Google Sheet format. The link is “live” to the document I edit. It is read-only, but you can use the Google Sheet “File” menu to make an editable copy, print, and download to various formats.
Also, here is a link to the compressed folder containing various references and the software I’ve written with Mathematica® to generate the parent-sibling diagram:
Hybrid persimmons in U.S. circulation.zip
I am willing to consider requests for updates to either of the above or the diagram below as time permits. PM is recommended.
I’ve been sent paperwork from Cliff a couple of time with a path toward USDA-ship I guess. They’ll pay for breeding research; like all of it.
cliff (for the record and i’m about out of fuel) told me verbatim my sovietski at my house is definitely a hybrid. my other Sovietski at the farm is the QUOTE from cliff, “same thing.” He went further to say they are both hybrids probably to get me off the phone.
<< 2021 winter cold blast of -20°f at night for a week killed most of my hybrid persimmon seedlings and advanced pawpaw seedlings. Yet 5 year old ‘Kasandra’, ‘Zima Khurma’ and ‘Mikkusa’ were unscathed.>>
I don’t know where you found this information.
Pamjat passemkova is an F2, if it was a Rosseyanka mutation he would be an F1.
He can’t be a superosijanka seedling either.
Superosijanka is probably just Rosseyanka. Would be an earlier and larger Rosseyanka mutation. The person who got it in Ukraine died in an accident. The variety was unveiled much later than Pamjat passemkova. So sowing impossible.
Since then, all the people who have this variety don’t talk about it anymore… if it’s unknown, not distributed, there’s a problem. To be certain I will put a Rosseyanka and a superosijnka next to each other…
Richard, thanks for putting this together. It’s a beautiful representation of prodigy; Mathematica® is the perfect name to represent what is currently unknown, Diospyros.
I hope your software is distributed like scions are. 
(you know what I mean)
I misled you with my initial wording. The software I wrote is free, but it requires the Mathematica® programming environment.
Wow, sooooo cooool! Go Richard. Keep on moving! Wow, you are Good for the world’s environment if you will.
Best wishes, as always to you. “fer” sure, 
DAX 
Richard,
If this were true:
(J-PCNA x J-PVNA) x J-PCNA = 23% J-PCNA
what happens if Hybrid-PVNA ‘Kujinaja’ is substituted. Let’s play the game. Let’s do assume…
Thanks
Dax
Don’t get caught up in China vs. Japan politics. Drop the "J-"s and "C-"s.
One problem is that we don’t know the underlying genetics of Kujinaja. With a hexaploid genome, you just about have to make test crosses to figure out what is going on behind the gene curtain.
@Barkslip
Darrell makes a good point here.
For individuals, this kind of equation works:
cultivar #1: (50% PCNA, 50% PVNA)
cultivar #2: (90% PCNA, 10% PVNA)
1 x 2: (70% PCNA, 30% PVNA) [approximately]
But knowing the percentages for Kuji Naja is difficult. This is why commercial breeders plan for several generations of reinforcement and culling.
There are different kinds of strategies depending upon what kind of trait is desired.
Does it make any difference if (Lab j-PVNA x Lab j-PCNA) x Lab j-PCNA is my question?
Nishimura Wase was selected in a trial and they hybridized with lesser known “wild” Lab j-PCNA and then to Lab J-PCNA again. I had to recheck my notes.
There was like 141 trees created and the rate of Lab j-PCNA was 23% after (non-astringent) trees.
Yea, I expected problems within the “hexaploid” situation and expected a tongue-lashing about it. \
I’m going back to bed.
At least I know my equation is correct so I can sleep.
If “Lab j-PVNA” and “Lab j-PCNA” are plants then each needs to be replaced by a pair of percentages.
For example:
Lab j-PVNA = (a% PVNA, b% PCNA)
Lab j-PCNA = (c% PVNA, d% PCNA)
⇒
Lab j-PVNA x Lab j-PCNA =
((a+c)/2 % PVNA, (b+d)/2 % PCNA) [approximately]
But we don’t know the values of a, b, c, d, x, and y for any persimmons.
In particular, Kuji Naja ≠ (100% PVNA, 0% PCNA).
The point is not different politics but different genetics, producing different mechanisms for producing non-astringency.
Sheesh.
The right way to think about it is that J-PCNA is 0% AST (astringent), 100% ast (non-astringent). All 6 of 6 alleles are non-astringent. We know from breeding research that 6 of 6 ast alleles are required. The J-PCNA trait is all or none.
Meanwhile, PV is separate and cumulative. For a variety that is not PCNA, it appears that (a) no PV alleles results in a PCA phenotype, (b) some PV alleles results in a PVA phenotype, and (c) most or all PV alleles results in a PVNA phenotype. This is very approximate but for sake of illustration we might assume 0-1 (0-17%) PV alleles implies PCA, 2-4 (33-66%) PV alleles implies PVA, and 5-6 (83-100%) PV alleles implies PVNA.
Some PCNAs such as Fuyu also display PV – remember it’s a separate trait! – so a Fuyu can have browning flesh if seeded. Of course, Fuyu produces small amounts of tannin so the browning is minor. Thus Fuyu is BOTH PCNA and PV.
As you’d expect from the above, PCNA x PCNA always produces PCNA offspring. In contrast, PCNA x PCA rarely produces PCNA, presumably only if the PCA variety is hiding three PCNA alleles. But you can get PCNA at something like 15% in the F2 generation by (a) crossing PCNA x PCA, and then (b) back-crossing PCNA x the F1 offspring.
As you’d expect from the above, PCNA x PVNA produces neither PCNA nor PVNA! Rather, the result of PCNA x PVNA is PVA. Why? The PVNA will not supply three ast (non-astringent) alleles, so the offspring will never have a full complement off 6 non-astringent alleles – so no PCNA. And the PCNA will not supply many, if any, PV alleles, so the offspring will never have enough PV alleles to achieve full PVNA. In this cross, the PV gets diluted, resulting in a PVA.
I’m not guessing at this. It is a demonstrated and published.result of breeding experiments.
By your description, PV is a separate trait from NA and it is neither dominant nor recessive. Some texts call this “penetrant” meaning the number of copies determines phenotype. The statement mixes NA which is proven recessive with PV which is penetrant therefore the statement must be false. This is just a gripe about being explicit when describing genetics. If PV is in fact separate from NA, then treat them as such. It should be simple to breed a PVNA, PCNA, or PVA or PCA depending on the parents chosen.
The statistic you have used was claimed in an article describing breeding experiments.
From biological observations, a group of NA persimmon trees contains two exclusive groups: PV and PC. Thus among NA persimmons
% PVNA + % PCNA = 100%
However, in breeding experiments there is the additional monkey wrench of A vs. NA. Thus to solve for % PVNA or % PCNA from breeding data, the analysis must consider joint probabilities which would exhibit themselves as diophantine equations in the computations. The article describing breeding experiments did not do this.
Let me try to clarify, even though these facts should be totally clear from voluminous prior discussion: There are two paths to non-astringency. One path is to cut off the production of tannins early. This is what happens in both J-PCNAs and C-PCNAs, though the mechanisms are different. A second path is to precipitate the tannins after they are produced. This is what happens in PVAs/PVNAs.
Thus, I am not mixing anything. That’s what others have done in their crude equations above. I’m trying to separate these two paths so we treat them separately
You’ve shifted ground.
The statement above is about phenotype.
Your earlier statement is about genotype.
<< For individuals, this kind of equation works:
cultivar #1: (50% PCNA, 50% PVNA)
cultivar #2: (90% PCNA, 10% PVNA)
1 x 2: (70% PCNA, 30% PVNA) [approximately] >>
My comments address your prior statement and specifically the question which genotypes correspond to given phenotypes.
Even so, your statement above about phenotype seems false. As noted, there are varieties such as Fuyu that are both PCNA and PVNA (or at least PVA). So Fuyu could get counted in both categories and then the total would be more than 100%.