Thank you Scott. I copied your list for future reference after reading it. Your studious and passionate observations are useful and interesting as always. I think it should be mentioned to others, tempted to use this as a guideline, that it takes at least ten years of cropping to really get a handle on the quality of any given variety- it is amazing how much variation there is year to year. And that variation gives you a clue about how much any given variety can vary region to region. Also a tree has to be in full production to accurately asses the fruit. A couple of fruit with lots of leaves may not be a realistic representation. There is also the obvious fact that taste evaluations are extremely subjective Please don't take these comments as a criticism of your evaluations, which I value highly. I only offer them to suggest to others to choose varieties to grow based on a wide range of information. The best information may be available by sampling a wide range of apples at a nearby farmers market to find apples that are bound to be relatively easy to grow. In my experience unusual apples often turn out to be unusual because they do not crop reliably or are otherwise unproductive or difficult to grow. For a beginner I think it's best to start with reliable varieties and then literally branch out. I have found Kidd's to be pretty easy to grow also, although it tends to be biennial for me. This may be due to tardy thinning, however. For me, in southeastern NY, most of the Russets seem very prone to bug and wasp damage with Roxbury being an exception. Roxbury is also extremely and reliably annually productive. Another exception is Ashmeads Kernel (alhtough not so productive but a best of best apple). Neither of these is fully russeted, however. I'd like to get some Pomme Gris wood from you. Have to see if it isn't easier for me than the likes of Golden Russet and Hudson's Golden Gem- two wonderful but difficult to grow apples for me. By the time they are ripe they tend to be either full of bird and wasp holes or bug bumps and dimples. After all the late frost, squirrel, bird and wasp problems I only have Goldrush, Jonathon, and Roxbury in storage this year. Worst season in memory and good riddance to it!

If a rose is notorious for sporting frequently, and if those sports are notorious for reverting, does it make sense that the change is due to a genetic mutation? Of course not. The DNA is the same, but the level of expression changes. Otherwise, what the claim is really stating is that a random mutation occurred, changing the DNA sequence such that now its flowers are different, and then randomly mutated back to the original DNA sequence, but everything else remained exactly the same. The odds of that happening are astronomical -- clearly not the accurate explanation of something occurring frequently. What's more likely is that as cells differentiated to form new top growth, the 3-D structure of the DNA (but not its sequence of nucleotides), which had to change anyway during cellular differentiation, didn't EXACTLY match the same 3-D structure in one branch as another, resulting in some genes being expressed at slightly different levels from cane to cane. Since the 3-D structure of DNA in the cells repeatedly changes as the cells differentiate (from stem to bud, or stem to root), there's much more possibility of this kind of variation going back and forth than that the actual DNA sequence changes and changes back again. If the DNA was that unstable sequentially, the plant likely couldn't survive. :-) ~Christopher This post was edited by AquaEyes on Wed, Apr 24, 13 at 23:15

Theoreticaly, you could be right. However, some viruses may induce mutations. Phyllody can be viral or other phytoplasmic infection. Most mutations are degenerative. Not all, but most. Climbing mutations often are degenerative in bloom production compared to their original bush forms. Frequently, they are once flowering and require selection to sort out those which repeat. Cl. Iceberg is an excellent example. When first released, there were several strains of the climbing form, many of which didn't repeat and some which didn't flower much at all. Of course people wanted the more continuous, heavier flowering version and that's what has become the standard in commerce. Kim Here is a link that might be useful: Phyllody

It doesn't matter where you plant the sport as the original parent has no effect on its reversion or stability. That is determined by how stable the genetic combination is. The mutation is identical to the parent other than the expression of the mutation. Planting Brilliant Pink, Burgundy and Iceberg all together can make a very attractive grouping, but none of the plants have any genetic effect on any others, just as no other rose in your garden has any genetic effect on any other roses planted near them. If the "genetic fabric" of the rose is sufficiently unstable, it can mutate. Sports have the natural tendency to revert to the original about 30% of the time when propagated. The more unstable the mutation, the greater the tendency to either mutate further, or revert to the original. I personally, enjoy seeing sports all planted together with the original parent. Grouping all the various permutations of them together permits you to watch how the mutations occurred. Camellias and Azaleas sport easily, too. Walking through a garden containing the mutations planted together shows you how they express themselves and how to spot a sport. Very often, the sport is virtually identical to the original, except color. It's generally more pleasing to see uniform plants grouped together where only the flower color varies. But, that is personal preference, so your mileage will vary. Kim This post was edited by roseseek on Fri, Sep 6, 13 at 13:42