Notwithstanding the author’s own interpretation, the data in the blog post doesn’t tell us anything that proves or disproves the hypothesis that he has created an intergeneric hybrid. To demonstrate that, you need to show that there are genetic components in the F1 population that could only have come from the raspberry pollen parent. The data don’t show that. It does show that CSIRO detected 152 proteins in the F1 material that were present in the raspberry material but not found in the strawberry material, but because this is a proteomics, not a genomics analysis, that could be because of differential gene expression in the analyzed materials masked the presence of genes for those proteins in the strawberry material. Is that likely? Well, the data also show that CSIRO detected 423 proteins in the F1 that were in neither the raspberry or strawberry material, which is very compelling evidence that a good deal of differential gene expression between the samples was present - an F1 offspring can’t have invented genes for that many new proteins that didn’t come from one parent or other. In short, proteomics is the wrong analysis. The author needs a genomic, or at least a chomosome-level, genetic analysis to make his case.
Like @BerryAllen, I’m skeptical of the claim until we see some genetic analysis. There are two ways the claimed hybridization could have occurred. One is pure sexual reproduction, in which the F1 generation has half of it’s chromosomes inherited from the strawberry, and half from the raspberry. This is only possible if the author used a diploid strawberry species. He gives no indication beyond the word “strawberry” what the female parent was, but most strawberries are not diploid. The common domestic strawberry is octoploid.
The other mechanism is through the formation of a polyploid hybrid, in which the F1 gets a complete chromosome set from both parents. Crossing an octoploid strawberry with a diploid raspberry would give a decaploid (2n = 10x = 70) new interspecific cross.