Apples have some of wildest biology that I've seen as a non-professional biologist. At many genes, they carry two different alleles instead of two matching ones. They're almost all self-incompatible. A Honeycrisp flower cannot pollinate a Honeycrisp flower.
This means that you can't breed them in the traditional sense that we do with other plants. Outside of Granny Smith apples the ones you eat are mostly the results of mutations in the grown plants that we cut off and graft.
Heterozygosity and self-incompatibility are common to fruit trees in general, not specific to apples.
I think ancestral citruses (not the crosses) are the primary exception, as well as a few citrus hybrids which create clone seeds asexually.
> Outside of Granny Smith apples the ones you eat are mostly the results of mutations in the grown plants that we cut off and graft.
Honeycrisp is a chance seedling, though it stems from a horticultural crossbreeding effort it was grown from seed. And commercially useful sport mutations tend to come from popular chance seedlings to start with, since it is necessarily a more limited evolution of the basal cultivar, which needs to exist and in sufficient quantity that you’ll roll out useful mutations eventually (also useful is in the eye of the beholder as we can see with the red so-called delicious).
The coolest thing about some apple cultivars is how their story is "someone found an apple tree at the side of a road with tasty apples", and people kept grafting them to this day. Boskoop, for example.
Why is the headline written in a magical realism style in an article about the analysis of the apple tree? "Solved mystery of ancient tree"? "Rewrote the history of fruit"? Like okay, it's cool but it's not Game of Thrones
An excuse to say "apple detectives"? Choice of words drew me in, and I'm happy it did. This is quirky news; it's making a bit of geekery interesting to distracted geeks, like me.
The subject is interesting and I am not doubting that. The story is interesting as well.
But the headline is just weird, especially for an outlet like that. Why do we need to resort to goofy theatrics to attract people to science (interesting in itself) is the problem I have. Same reason why I detest people who genuinely think Kip Thorne's most famous work is Interstellar.
Apples have some of wildest biology that I've seen as a non-professional biologist. At many genes, they carry two different alleles instead of two matching ones. They're almost all self-incompatible. A Honeycrisp flower cannot pollinate a Honeycrisp flower.
This means that you can't breed them in the traditional sense that we do with other plants. Outside of Granny Smith apples the ones you eat are mostly the results of mutations in the grown plants that we cut off and graft.
Heterozygosity and self-incompatibility are common to fruit trees in general, not specific to apples.
I think ancestral citruses (not the crosses) are the primary exception, as well as a few citrus hybrids which create clone seeds asexually.
> Outside of Granny Smith apples the ones you eat are mostly the results of mutations in the grown plants that we cut off and graft.
Honeycrisp is a chance seedling, though it stems from a horticultural crossbreeding effort it was grown from seed. And commercially useful sport mutations tend to come from popular chance seedlings to start with, since it is necessarily a more limited evolution of the basal cultivar, which needs to exist and in sufficient quantity that you’ll roll out useful mutations eventually (also useful is in the eye of the beholder as we can see with the red so-called delicious).
The coolest thing about some apple cultivars is how their story is "someone found an apple tree at the side of a road with tasty apples", and people kept grafting them to this day. Boskoop, for example.
Getting to that is one of the reasons why people would kinda just grow apple seeds all over.
Plus they were not completely wasted, while not generally edible they’re fine for cider.
Why is the headline written in a magical realism style in an article about the analysis of the apple tree? "Solved mystery of ancient tree"? "Rewrote the history of fruit"? Like okay, it's cool but it's not Game of Thrones
An excuse to say "apple detectives"? Choice of words drew me in, and I'm happy it did. This is quirky news; it's making a bit of geekery interesting to distracted geeks, like me.
The subject is interesting and I am not doubting that. The story is interesting as well.
But the headline is just weird, especially for an outlet like that. Why do we need to resort to goofy theatrics to attract people to science (interesting in itself) is the problem I have. Same reason why I detest people who genuinely think Kip Thorne's most famous work is Interstellar.
I mean "someone sent in an apple they found and it turns out to be an ancestor of most of other apples" supports 3 ad spots max.
It's the Reality Distortion Field™.
Best known from The Bible, Steve Jobs, Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler.
Slightly more than half of the population is susceptible.
Thinking gucci is gucci