@hambone
Lehman’s Delight = 100-46
2 Likes
Why would we still use a number after a variety is named and achieves success? Lots of people read this posts to find trees to purchase and I doubt many nurseries sell it by number.
All the popular Claypool varieties (e.g., H-63A, D-128) are there. Most of those are crosses of wild dioecious females x monoecious wild “males” (e.g., H63A = Morris Burton x Early Golden) or wild dioecious females x monoecious “males” descending from Early Golden (e.g., H-118 = Juhl x George). Many of the varieties that were used by Lehman to produce his varieties (e.g., Barbra’s Blush = D-128 x F-58) come from Claypool.
Bottom line, you won’t have to trace back far before you get to the original wild varieties.
1 Like
@hambone
That’s a good point. The few nursery sites I visit list it by name & number. When I first mentioned it far above, I used both. But then more recently I was lazy. Now it’s updated.
1 Like
Sorry, I missed your first entry.
2 Likes
Hey, no problem. If you did then many others will also miss it.
2 Likes
@jrd51
That’s good news. Sounds much easier than the 122k fig names and misspellings I’ve been sorting through for the last 2 years. That project is getting easier – only 4900 left to go.
2 Likes
@Richard – This is not exactly your plan, but I’ll toss it out here anyway: Most popular named varieties are a product of (A) a wild dioecious female and (B) a monoecious “male” – either Early Golden or a descendant. It would be very interesting to see what wild ancestry is correlated with what traits.
Some varieties:
H-63A is Morris Burton x Early Golden
F-25 [Prairie Gem] is Morris Burton x George
I-94 [Valene Beauty] is Lena x Early Golden
H-118 [Pairie Star] is Juhl x George
H-120 is Juhl x George
H-55A [Prairie Dawn] is Juhl x Garretson
I-115 is Juhl x Garretson
D-128 [Dollywood] is Miller x G2
Some pollinators (lots of EG here):
Szukis is EG x OP.
Killen is also EG x OP
G2 is Killen x Szukis
George is Killen x OP
Garretson is also Killen x OP
2 Likes
If there is one thing I have learned from studying pecan crosses, it is to never fully trust written records of crosses made. Roughly 1 in 10 will wind up having a different paternal parent than is recorded. For example, Creek pecan was recorded as Mohawk X Starking Hardy Giant. DNA tests proved it was actually Mohawk X Western Schley. Caddo was recorded as Brooks X Alley. DNA tests proved it is Brooks X Schley. In other words, expect a few of the recorded crosses in persimmon will have different parentage than is recorded.
3 Likes
I agree with this 100%.
I disagree with this 100%.
- They were PCR, not DNA tests.
- The lab assay methods estimated the lengths (not the contents) of sequences between the PCR primers. It has since been shown that the obtained sequences are not necessarily from the targeted location, because there are multiple occurrences of the primers in the DNA.
- The mathematical methods used to estimate the dissimilarities of lengths between cultivars are invalid, with errors ranging between 10% and 85%.
- Two cultivars with the same PCR sequence lengths are not necessarily identical because the contents of the sequences were never checked.
“Caddo’ Orig. thought to be a controlled cross of ‘Brooks’ X ‘Alley’ made in 1922 or 1923 by C. A. Reed, USDA-ARS, Philema, GA. More recent genotyping by sequencing (GBS) analysis identified it as Brooks x Schley (Bentley, N., Grauke, L.J., Klein, P.E. 2019. Genotyping by sequencing (GBS) and SNP marker analysis of diverse accessions of pecan (Carya illinoinensis). Tree Genetics & Genomes 15:8)”
Pecan genome and genetic mapping currently has over 5000 accessions fully sequenced with a target of over 12,000 within the next few years. I could wish we had similar levels for persimmon.
@Fusion_power
That is a PCR study. Both the assay and dissimilarity methods are erroneous. Further, the genotyping by sequencing method used to identify loci of interest is a cheap laboratory apparatus with an error rate greater than 7%.
The horticultural genetics literature is a delusional echo chamber.
Thanks. The risk now, of course, is that I’m tempted to start manipulating the data to see if it says anything useful. If that happens, I’ll try to lie down until the feeling goes away.
3 Likes
A common human failing is the tendency to seek patterns even when there are none.
2 Likes
Here’s an interesting analysis of the Claypool data I came across on the forum at some point:
Raymond_2006.pdf (479.8 KB)
Some takeaways:
- The author ranks cultivars after putting some constraints on the data (omitted sparsely populated categories, normalized score for each category to 1). Their criteria put Valeene Beauty I-94/I-94A (I believe these are the same tree?) on top see Table 1.
- Female pollen donors generally produce better crosses than male pollen donors. Figure 2 is pretty striking.
- Given the above, they describe a potential approach for inducing female flowers on males to evaluate their fitness.
You meant monoecious donors?
I don’t know the exact correct classification, but my understanding is that these are generally dioecious female cultivars that periodically produce male sports. This is seemingly an uncommon attribute for which Early Golden and many of its offspring are known.
@jallen
Monoecious is the correct term. A dioecious plant cannot have male and female flowers on the same individual.
A related source of confusion is species vs landrace (cultivars circulated by humans). There are monoecious individuals in the wild, but more often there are single sex individuals under cultivation.
1 Like