Published history comes from oral history, from the earliest moments of human history all the way till the present day. It’s an account of what someone knows in written form. @Blake has a pretty good book on pawpaw, and breaks it down by cultivar and shares the history of how they came to be. That information came from his time interacting with Woody Walker, Kirk Pomper, Ron Powell, Jerry Lehman, Cliff England, etc… etc…
I’m not referring to bulletin board discussions. I’m talking about information from the original source.
I can’t speak to the legitimacy of their tests. Ron Powell regards them well so that is all I know. As you pointed out, it was published in 2010. Science is always about the expansion of knowledge. If there is more recent research that expands on pawpaws, I do not know. I do not particularly follow the pawpaw research scene closely.
Genetic tests are always done as a confidence interval. The genetic test for parenthood does exist in that regard. It’s just as it is in humans as it is in covid strains. Genetic distance based on marker analysis tells us the likelihood and lineal as well as generational relationship between organisms. In this, I am aware. I still do a lot of PCR testing both in the lab and at home (Rosbreed stuff).
Just to be clear, I’m not nullifying your assertion - Sunflower is the parent of Prima 1216.
That’s not the issue. It suffers from basic science malpractices: under-determined data matrix, numerous marker errors and omissions, use of erroneous markers, faulty distance calculation, erroneous use of pair-joining analysis.
I grafted several varieties last year to individual rootstock as well as to a 15 year old seedling as a multigraft tree.
I had only one small scion of Jerry’s Delight. So I grafted 3 chip buds along a branch. This year all 3 small growths bloomed and are now setting fruits. This appears to be the most precocious variety I’ve grafted so far.
I assume the 2010 thing we’re both referring to is the " Genetic Variation in Pawpaw Cultivars Using Microsatellite Analysis" article from 2011?
You’re kind of comparing apples to oranges though. Huang used RAPD testing. Pomper used SSR. These techniques would naturally apply different forms of analysis. These two techniques have often yielded different findings in everything from kiwi, beans, popcorn maize, etc…
I dont grow JD but i hope to add some of Jerry’s pawpaws at some point. I have noticed several varieties that bloomed the fallowing year after being grafted to a large tree that’s already mature enough to bloom.
The seedling does bloom, so that could definitely be a factor. I think I got a bloom or two from other varieties but nothing like this on JD. Maybe something special
I’m not comparing the two studies, I’m stating that Pomper’s “Genetic Variation in Pawpaw” paper is among the worst in the horticulture literature.
Further, H. Huang’s 2003 paper is not without error: it also utilizes an invalid distance measure - as is common in the biostatistics literature. His data set is sound though, I have re-analyzed it here:
We are very happy to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication in IJCSA.
R. Frost. “Coupled analysis of Pawpaw (Asimina triloba) genetic markers and ancestry records.” International Journal on Computational Science & Applications (in press).
I don’t think it’s unique for Jerry’s Delight, which I assume is 275-48/Lehmnan’s Delight? I know I’m not the only one with frakenpawpaws. The grafts I make on my mature pawpaws 15-years old+ routinely seem to fruit the next year after grafting.
Gotcha. I’m not seeing the same level of bloom on any of the other 10 or so varieties I put on this seedling though.
This, I believe, is 250-30. Jerry had 2 delights, I guess. I have Lehman’s Delight growing on a young rootstock.
I haven’t read Huang’s paper in detail so I cannot comment on it in that specific manner. I just remember he went with RAPD. I’m more bio-oriented so my attention tends to get drawn to processes and materials, just as you’re more math-focused so your attention will be drawn toward the the analysis.
Interesting! Anything that adds more information to what we know about pawpaws is great!
With Jerry’s passing, the only one that would probably know is either Ron or Cliff. As I recall KY-8-2, was just seed collected from one of the random KSU plantings or some other seedling.
Looking across the literature of some 85k horticulture genetic distance papers, mostly they are not.
I believe you are referring to the maximum likelihood methods catalogued by A. Jones. It is an excellent volume. However, due to its use of the absolute value metric it is limited to applications of pairwise comparison and is a poor measure of all-to-all distances.
This is due to differing dimensions of the raw data matrices and the differing (often erroneous) analyses methods applied to them.
He also developed AFLP markers for Pawpaw and published a paper in 2005. Again he used an invalid distance measure and unfortunately did not publish raw marker data. His most recent paper (12/21) concerns Kiwi fruit.
Poor wording on my part. Probability. Moreover each method of genetic distance calculation has its own build in assumptions.
Any computational model is going to have that. No doubt some are better than others. Not disputing that. Models change as we learn more and have better inputs.
As far as different findings, I mean even employing the same method of analysis. There have been several papers I believe comparing the two. What/which DNA sequences get amplified is often different, which obviously means the the findings can be different, though highly correlated they may be. Sometimes the data matrix will have missing information, that’s not the fault of the researcher. Sometimes that’s the way the cookie crumbles when you amplify specific sequences using a different approach. That can result in imperfect results. I don’t think that makes it flawed in a malicious or irresponsible way per say.
Scientific findings are always going to be a moving target, so it’s self-correcting in a way. Processes, materials, and methods always improve. If you come up with a better to do analysis, it’ll be adopted. If someone comes up with a better method to replicate DNA, it’ll be adopted. That’s the great thing about science. I’m sure your paper is part of discussion that helps move our understanding of pawpaws further.
I’m less keen on AFLP, but that’s only because my focus tends to be more micro than macro. There are definite advantages with that approach though.
This is an over-generalization. It certainly does not provide an excuse for Pomper’s genetic study.
If the method is not a metric then it is an erroneous assumption. If allele frequencies are used for numeric values but the correlation matrix of the frequencies is singular then it is another erroneous assumption. And so on.
I have yet to see an example of RAPD and SSR studies on the same specimens with the same marker resolution. Perhaps you can supply one?
There are no excuses for Pomper’s pawpaw genetics article. Perhaps that’s why he did not respond when the journal tried to contact him about disputed research. He should withdraw the paper.
Pomper’s genetic distance study was published in J ASHS. Their idea of peer review has always been that you appoint your own reviewers. In recent years it has been flagged as a paper mill.
