mikevan

I appreciate your links - did I say TC mutations are not used and are trashed? If that's what you read, then I worded it wrong - let me paraphrase - I basically said most are culled as undesireable during the screening process. You can get pretty durned targetted via induced mutations, but you still have a lot of culling and screening of undesireables. Heck, even in regular TC you have culling. Nanners seem to be more prone to this in many cases - AE AE for instance has been determined by a few here and the market in general to be unreliable in TC resulting in a lot more culling than usual which is why it's so expensive until adaquete methods are found to reduce the variability of the explants.

Nevertheless, the point I was making was that breeding programs do not depend on random mutation in the field - tho they can certainly use these in their progress, but rather depend on purposeful breeding processes not because mutation is rare - but because it often does not fit into their planned agenda in their breeding program. This, however, in no way degrades the value of natural mutation - this mutation is part of the natural adaptive process that has been occuring for eons, and in some cases produces truely lucky finds. That, tho, is why breeding programs continue to be the primary means of product development in the light of the occasional sports.

My current background centers primarily around colocasia sp and more recently xanthosoma sp, conservation which includes developing and maintaining a stateside private germplasm bank with a focus on the heirloom edible breeds which hopefully will be available via ARS in short order. These interests flow into musa as well as cacao - which is equally on the brink due to genetic weaknesses thanks to the lack of breeding research and heavy cloning - something that's currently in the process of being rectified, tho with great difficulty. My effort with the germplasm bank is to conserve and to revive interest in taro and taro related research that is up to now threatened in programs like CTAHR due to lack of funds and interest. Thusly, I'm fairly familiar with the breeding industry, tho I am far from a seasoned expert. Yet - it would seem I know enough to see the flaw in your argument that mutation == breeding and if mutation were that common, breeding would cease.

Nevertheless, this isn't about tooting horns tho this seems to be becoming a tooting match - gimme some cabbage and beer and I'll out-toot anyone here! It's about... well, what the heck is this about? If you care so much about CG - go buy one and grow it, for crying out loud. If you've never grown it, don't attempt to debunk it based on pure opinion - that's just not the way to go about it. Form a hypothesis, then prove it. So far you've given opinion without the demostration of direct hands-on evidence and using soley your 20+ years of experience with 20+ varieties of nanners as a fulcrum to leverage your argument, and you continue to debate in the face of people who actually grow these things. I'm very interested in the results of your own side-by-side comparisons - it is clearly something you're passionate about and that alone would be worth the $50 or so the high bid would end up being. I for one have seen the results of independant growers who do not profit from CG and am eager to try one myself, and I started out with nearly the same opinion as yourself (tho I never asserted that it was an orinoco). It will certainly not be the cornerstone of my collection - currently only 24 varieties - but it will be a curiosity worth investigating and an interesting addition to my Musa ohana.

Up to this point, you've not adaquately answered the true source of your assertions - that you've done the work and seen for yourself that this plant is indeed an orinoco. You tell us to look at the morphology, and people who have done so have replied to your challenge - to which you have ignored. If you haven't hands-on experience with the CG, and this is only an opinion, then let it be an opinion - but don't come on like it's fact because you simply do not know and that is insulting to those who really do know. And those that are growing it are in a position to know - please listen to them and give them a benefit of a doubt.

Be well,
Mike