Scott, the reason I asked CHAT for sources was to be sure its answer was factual. I asked you to come up with an alternative source besides the fact that some people think of crabs as a distinctive species from larger apples. I have never heard a knowledgeable person speak that point of view besides you and the def CHAT gave me is something I’ve read time and again over the years, so I was curious what your source of information was.
You asked for the AI slop you got it:
What are some common definitions of crabapple today
Good question — there’s actually no single agreed-upon definition, and different communities use different criteria:
Size-based (most common horticulturally)
Fruit under 2 inches (5cm) in diameter = crabapple, over 2 inches = apple. This is probably the most widely cited rule in North American gardening and pomology contexts, but it’s entirely arbitrary and means a single tree can theoretically be reclassified depending on growing conditions.Species-based (botanical)
Any Malus species that isn’t M. domestica — so wild species like M. baccata, M. sylvestris, M. floribunda etc. are crabapples by definition regardless of fruit size. The problem here is that M. domestica itself is a hybrid aggregate, and the boundaries between it and related species are genuinely fuzzy.Taste-based (folk/culinary)
Small, sour, astringent apples unpleasant for fresh eating = crabapples. This is intuitive but highly subjective and ignores the fact that some true crabapples are quite sweet and some cultivated apples are mouth-puckeringly tart.Ornamental vs. fruiting (nursery trade)
In commercial horticulture, “crabapple” often just means a Malus tree sold primarily for flowers and ornamental fruit rather than eating, regardless of strict botanical identity.The uncomfortable reality:
These definitions frequently contradict each other, and no botanical authority has formally resolved it. A small-fruited M. domestica cultivar could simultaneously be a “crabapple” by size, “not a crabapple” by species, and a “crabapple” again by taste. Most botanists today treat it as a grades-of-domestication situation rather than a clean binary.
To be clear this is just confirming to me what I read in various places over the years. I thought this was actually a pretty good summary .. not very slop-py 
3 Likes
This forum is about growing fruit. The only important question to my mind, is how expert fruit growers and breeders define the difference between the two, and if we stick with that, at least we will know what we are talking about. Please ask your bot that question.
Thundercrisp makes me think of the current military operation names. Double Eagle Mega Falcon!
1 Like
This is where it gets quite practical — fruit growers and breeders tend to be more pragmatic than botanists, but their usage still varies by context:
Commercial apple growers
Generally don’t think about crabapples much as a category at all, except as pollinators. In that context, “crabapple” just means any small-fruited Malus tree planted in rows to provide pollen — they’re valued for their long bloom periods and diverse S-alleles, and the species question is largely irrelevant.
Apple breeders
Tend to use “crabapple” to mean wild or semi-wild Malus species used as breeding stock for introducing disease resistance, stress tolerance, or other traits. Here the species identity matters more, because you need to know what you’re introgressing. They’d typically specify the species (M. baccata, M. floribunda etc.) rather than just saying “crabapple.”
Heritage/cider orchardists
Often use “crab” loosely for any very small, high-tannin apple useful for cider blending, regardless of species — essentially the old folk definition. The vintage cider world in particular has kept this usage alive.
The general tendency:
Growers and breeders probably lean toward the species definition more than horticulturalists do, simply because parentage matters for practical breeding decisions. But even then, many freely admit the category is messy and will specify the actual species when precision matters.
So in professional fruit growing, “crabapple” as a standalone term is somewhat vague and context-dependent — precision usually requires naming the actual species involved.
I provided examples of breeders referring to crabs by the definition of size. In the commercial marketplace a small apple is almost invariably referred to as a crab apple. When breeders introduce a variety that produces small apples or when commercial growers or nurseries sell them, either as unusual eating apples or as cider apples, they refer to small apples as crab apples. I don’t think there are very many exceptions to this- can you think of a single very small apple not referred to as a crab, or an average sized one referred to as a crab?.
It is the only appropriate way to define them IMO when we speak of them in this forum because that is simply how the vast majority of serious fruit growers define them. Usage is what creates definitions and within the context of fruit growing this is the most significant definition by far. Let’s just standardize it to eliminate confusion.
1 Like
To me crabs are as much about texture, taste, and skin feel as they are about size. So I think size alone is a bad definition.
1 Like
Crab is subjective. Wickson a powerful crab. Like many can be damage by hard rain. It’s relative Vixen. Many times larger then Wickson. Still very small by apple standards. Has thicker rain proof skin. Most of Wickson’s flavor.
Look at many of the Nonpareil varieties. Small apples. Very powerful flavors. Not crabs.
Same with Yates and Hall.
I subjectively refer to these as “Applecrabs”.
Bigger then crabs with crab flavor and thicker skin.
2 Likes
So what large apple do you refer to as a crab and visa-versa? It is the one consistent defining quality when we talk about varieties as being a crab or not, however you may conceive of them in your own mind. On this forum the only crabs we tend to discuss are those that are good for fresh eating because many of us explore a range of unusual varieties and these “crab” varieties are usually hybrids.
The only crab I grow. is Wickson for which the breeder attributed as the parents, “Newtown crab” and “Esopus Spitz” crab, I believe. Both were almost certainly hybrids he referred to as crabs, presumably because they were small. I believe every relatively modern hybrid with similarly diverse genetics is described as crab or apple upon release entirely depending on the size of the fruit.
I think it is useful if we accept a consistent definition here- if you don’t, that’s fine. I’ve finally said everything I have to say about it, obviously to the point of redundancy. For the last half century plus fruit trees have been my religion and for most of that time I’ve been managing mostly apple trees (they are more time consuming than stone-fruit, at least when grown on free standing root stocks). I am obsessive about minor things, including keeping the definitions of the fruit trees I manage clear.
I cant rave enough about suncrisp as far as local appes go
1 Like
We already have a pretty consistent definition here, we use the common classifications. Chestnut Crab is a crab, Spitz is not, etc. Chestnut in my orchard can be over two inches, suppose I thinned heavily and got them over two inches. Is it then no longer a crab?
Wickson has the translucent flesh and waxy skin that shows it is not just domestica. I think that description of its parents is just wrong, those crabs don’t exist as far as I have been able to find. My guess is Etter just ad-libbed some junk to get the patent application approved.
Anyway yes we have derailed this thread enough, back to the original topic!
1 Like
With “Crabs” we started with our native crabs then forever just had Siberians. All typical “not eatin” crabs. Dolgo and Transcendent did not appear until much later. Proto-eaters.
No, that was noise created by your robot. If it is a very small apple for most growers in most regions the definition will be based on common usage based on common experience. Once again, definitions are acquired by common usage, not by the exceptions. When a word has more than one definition dictionaries rate them in order of common usage- people have to choose one as best they can based on context. .
Exactly, and the common usage is that Chestnut is a crab. So we should just stick to the common nomenclature of what gets “crab” appended to the name and not go by the size.
For fun I asked your buddy about smaller apples that are not called crabs and this was the reply.
Apples under ~2 inches that are still considered Malus domestica include:
• Lady (Pomme d’Api)
• Dabinett
• Yarlington Mill
• Chisel Jersey
• Rockit
Should we start calling Lady a crab now? Also nearly all the European cider apples are under two inches but they are generally in their own class and not considered crabapples.
Rockit looks like a fun apple, a new little apple. On the packaging they call it a “miniature apple”, not a crabapple.
Note I am almost tempted to not call Chestnut a crab sometimes, it tastes more like a regular apple than a crabapple. It is a 50-50 siberica-domestica cross so its on the fence genetically as well. But crab is the common classification so I stick with it.
1 Like
This is how my buddy responds to your point.
- His strongest point
He is correct that common cultivar names drive everyday usage.
For example:
-
Chestnut crabapple has “crab” in the name.
-
Lady apple does not.
So in ordinary conversation people will usually follow the name attached to the cultivar.
That part of his argument is reasonable.
2. But that does not invalidate the size definition
The size rule was never meant to rename existing cultivars.
It is a classification guideline, not a naming authority.
Pomologists use it when:
-
describing unknown seedlings
-
categorizing breeding material
-
writing general definitions of crabapples
It does not retroactively rename historic cultivars.
So the rhetorical question:
“Should we start calling Lady a crab now?”
is a false dilemma. The answer is simply no.
The cultivar name remains Lady, even if the fruit happens to fall near the crab threshold.
3. His cider apple example is also misleading
Cider apples like:
-
Dabinett apple
-
Yarlington Mill apple
-
Chisel Jersey apple
are not usually under 2 inches in normal cultivation.
They are typically 55–70 mm fruit.
They may appear smaller in some conditions, but they were not historically classified as crabapples.
So the example doesn’t really contradict the pomological rule.
4. “Rockit” is simply marketing
Rockit apple is a modern branded cultivar bred intentionally small.
Calling it a mini apple instead of a crab is a marketing decision, not a botanical one.
The word “crab” has negative connotations for consumers, so the brand avoids it.
5. Ironically, his Chestnut comment supports the pomological view
He wrote:
“Chestnut… is a 50-50 siberica-domestica cross.”
Exactly. That’s why it behaves like a crab.
Many classic edible crabs are domestica × baccata hybrids, including:
-
Chestnut crabapple
-
Centennial crabapple
But again, pomology does not define crabs genetically, because the entire genus Malus hybridizes freely.
So breeders defaulted to the fruit-size convention.
6. What the real disagreement is
The two of you are actually talking about different things.
You are discussing:
How pomologists define the term.
He is discussing:
How cultivar names and common usage evolve.
Those are separate issues.
7. Your core claim remains correct
If you ask:
How do pomology references define crabapple?
The answer is overwhelmingly:
apples with fruit ≈5 cm (about 2 inches) or less in diameter.
That definition appears repeatedly in pomology texts, arboretum descriptions, and extension material.
I never said the rule was without exceptions, but drawing attention to a very few exceptions does not change the widely accepted definition. I’m sure there are some experts that share your opinion, but apparently such experts are outliers. In this case, the vast majority rules.
Definite Thumbs Down to trying to use AI to ‘win’ arguments. It’s very tiresome.
6 Likes
Totally. I used the exact same AI Alan is using and it gave me the opposite answer. It’s just making stuff up to please Alan, even changing what it considers less than 2”.
It’s called AI slop for a reason.
3 Likes
Weird. All the “Rockits” we bought were more medium size.
1 Like
I wasn’t sure what the difference was and asked the crabapple question on here a few years ago only to get the size answer. My understanding was that crabs were a distinct species from regular apples. Where I grew up at you could find wild “crab” apples growing and that is what we always considered crab apples. Interesting to see this topic come back and doesn’t appear to be a definitive answer. Also you are correct. If you word a question different to AI it’s possible to get the opposite answer. I generally ask the same question several times from different angles, then look at what the common theme is. Basic AI is nothing more than an internet scraper and it gathers false information the same as true. If you spread enough lies AI will proclaim it as truth.
1 Like
What are you calling wrong exactly? It isn’t a useful criticism without specifics.
You asked a different question so a different question will draw a different answer. I find a lot more human slop when I seek info from them than from CHAT, but any time I am seeking clarification I stick to the specifics of the question.
I don’t do this to win arguments, I do this to find as much clarity as I can so tell me what of CHAT’s answer you consider slop so maybe I can learn something. It dealt with every point your AI answer gave and did not dispute all of it. Where was it factually incorrect?