Reply: Your claim that the fruit is wonderful is not in dispute. However, such statements are potentially misleading, because they suggest that modern fruit, in general, is closer to wild than it really is. So you planted a seed; it grew into a tree that gives high-quality fruit. Where did the seed come from? From a cultivated fruit, or a wild fruit? Almost certainly, the seed came from a cultivated fruit. What this means, then, is that your fruit tree is simply generation number N+1 of human- controlled varietal selection, and the seed it came from was generation number N. Thus your wonderful fruit tree is not very wild at all, but simply the next step in varietal selection. If the seed you used came from a wild tree, you might argue that your fruit is "nearly" wild, but that is apparently not the case here. (The above also shows how one must look very closely at fruitarian claims.) Comment seen elsewhere: "I was told that wild dates can be 70-80% sugar, and cultivated ones as low as 30% sugar. Doesn't this contradict the table's claim that wild fruits are often lower in sugar than cultivated?" Reply: The proposition that wild fruits are lower in sugar than cultivated is a generalization, and there may be some exceptions. (The references section (below) provides some examples where the wild precursors of popular modern sweet fruits are very sour and/or inedible.) Furthermore, the claim you report is vague and potentially dubious. Let's look at some facts regarding dates, and then evaluate the claim regarding wild dates. Types of dates: Dates are soft, semi-dry, or dry. This refers to the level of hydration (water content) at which the date is normally consumed. Obviously, dry dates have a generally lower moisture content than fresh, moist, soft dates. Julia Morton, in Fruits of Warm Climates (1987, p. 9) reports: Soft dates may be picked early while they are still light- colored. Semi-dry dates may be picked as soon as they are soft and then ripened artificially... Dry dates may be left on the palm until fully ripe... Extremely dry weather will cause dates to shrivel on the palm. Morton (p. 11) reports the summary composition of dates, per 100 gm edible portion: Fresh dates--

Water: 31.9-78.5 gm

CHO: 36.6 gm (CHO = carbohydrate, nearly all of which is sugar).

Water: 31.9-78.5 gm CHO: 36.6 gm (CHO = carbohydrate, nearly all of which is sugar). Dried dates--

Water: 7.0-26.1 gm

CHO: 72.9-77.6 gm USDA Handbook 8-9 (1982), p. 97, lists dates as 73.51 gm CHO per 100 gm edible portion. Paul Popenoe, in The Date Palm (1973, Field Research Projects, orig. written 1924, p. 134) reports that cultivated dates are 70-90% sugar. Finally, an analysis of four commercial Iraqi date cultivars by Yousif et al. ("Chemical Composition of Four Iraqi Date Cultivars," Date Palm Journal, 1982, (2):285-294), showed sugar content in the range ~86-88%, dry weight. Adjusting the dry weights to reflect original "wet" weight gives a sugar percentage range from 79.40 to 81.49, or approximately 80%. So, while we can't rule out the possibility the claim of 30% sugar for a very few select commercial cultivars might be true (the claimant here, however, apparently put forth no proposed, specific, named cultivar), it appears that the 70-90% sugar figure quoted by Popenoe is more realistic for the typical, popular commercial varieties. Now, let us evaluate the claim regarding wild dates. If sugar content is actually 70-80% as reported, then by default, water content is 30% or less, and maybe even below 20%. Thus, the wild date is a "dry" variety and/or has dried on the tree. If you take the water away from a date, the sugar content per 100 gm will increase-- for evidence of this, compare the nutritional analyses for dried grapes (raisins) vs. fresh grapes; dried apricots vs. fresh apricots; etc. A date with only 30% sugar is almost certainly a soft (moist) variety. Thus we observe that for a comparison of wild vs. cultivated dates to be meaningful in the context of this discussion, the dates must meet certain conditions: Both dates to be compared must be of the same "type"-- soft, semi-dry, or dry. Both must have been picked at the same stage of ripeness. This is very critical, as dates left on the palm will dehydrate, which increases sugar content by weight.

The claim as reported does not provide the above documentation. Hence the claim is vague, and it does not serve as a counterexample. Further, it appears that the claim is comparing a dry- type date, or dried wild date, against the lowest possible sugar content for a fresh, soft- type date. This suggests that those making the claim are presenting only data that supports their views (data selection bias), while in reality, the common commercial date varieties (as sold) are in the same sugar range that is claimed for the wild dates. This leads to the opinion that the claim may simply be a half-truth; partially true but misleading and unrealistic. In my opinion and experience, some so-called dietary "experts" promoting alternative diets deal predominantly in such half-truths. Comment received: "I was told by a 'fruitarian' expert that after generations of hybridization, a hybrid strain will die out or revert to a precursor form. I was also told that a seedless hybrid plant might begin producing seeds, and that this was a sign of genetic recession; the example of pineapple was cited. Is there a limit on hybridization?" Reply: The claims you cite are partially true, and partially false; this may be a sign of what is referred to as crank science, so you should evaluate such claims carefully. In order to answer your claim, some background information must be reviewed first, as follows. There are indeed limits on hybridization. Generally, only closely related plants can be crossed to yield hybrids. One could not cross an apple and an orange, for example.

Genetic mutations can and do occur. The grapefruit variety "Star Ruby," for example, was produced by taking seeds from a deep red, seeded grapefruit that originated as a chance mutation-- one branch on a grapefruit tree-- and irradiating the seeds to develop a seedless strain. ( Note: genetic mutations can be induced chemically; this is used with cloning to develop new strains.) Many common fruits are "polyembryonic," e.g., citrus, mangos, and many others. This means that when planted, the plants that grow from such seeds are not necessarily the same as the parent. This genetic variation is used by humans in the process of varietal selection to develop large, low-fiber, high- sugar- content fruit. There are strong evolutionary reasons for a polyembryonic plant to include, in its range of genetic variation, wild or precursor strains-- precisely because those strains, unlike the cultivated strains, pass the test of survival of the fittest. That is, those strains can survive in the wild. (If we allow ourselves the egoism to claim that we understand the laws of nature, then survival of the fittest is clearly nature's "first law," and modern hybrid fruit does not satisfy that law! :-) )

Given the above background, I would comment that hybrids generally do die out unless reproduced via vegetative propagation (grafting, budding, cloning)-- they are biologically "weak" in evolutionary terms; that is a major point of the table. Also, hybrids can revert to wild or precursor forms via chance genetic combination/ mutation or normal polyembryonic genetic variation (the latter if seeds from the hybrid are planted for varietal selection/ evaluation). These facts, however, do not place specific limits on crossing-- which is limited by the genetic compatibility of the material that you want to use for producing each new hybrid. Further, the genetic compatibility of a cross does not necessarily reflect the robustness or viability of a hybrid. A new hybrid may be very susceptible to insects, bacteria, viruses, hence not commercially viable. Such hybrids are culled out, as the goal of hybridization is to produce new commercial strains of fruits. So in real life, hybridization may lead to new varieties of fruits, but it can also lead to some dead- ends. There is no magic number of crosses beyond which hybridization is no longer feasible, and beyond which the plant must die out or revert to a precursor form (as your "expert" implies or suggests); instead, everything depends on the nature of the preceding crosses, and on luck. We cannot perfectly control or predict the outcome of crossing two plants; the result may be success or failure. Dead- ends and genetic recession are real- life aspects of this inexact process, but they don't preclude the use of hybridization to develop plants with marketable commercial traits, e.g., high sugar content and low fiber in fruits. The claim regarding pineapple seeds (that a seedless hybrid plant might begin producing seeds, constituting a sign of genetic recession) is humorous, and suggests that your fruit "expert" is ignorant regarding fruit. Seeds in pineapples are generally not a sign of genetic recession. Pineapples may produce seeds, but the cultivated pineapples don't because in commercial cultivation they are not pollinated. From Fruits of Warm Climates, by Julia Morton (1987), p. 18: If the [pineapple] flowers are pollinated, small, hard seeds may be present, but generally one finds only traces of undeveloped seeds. Since hummingbirds are the principal pollinators, these birds are prohibited in Hawaii to avoid the development of undesired seeds. I would note further that in some areas of the world, there are moths that provide pollination in a manner similar to the hummingbird; e.g., the hummingbird moth. Finally, in case your "expert" someday finds seeds in bananas, and claims it is an example of genetic recession, here is Julia Morton on banana seeds (Fruits of Warm Climates, 1987, p. 30): The common cultivated types are generally seedless with just minute vestiges of ovules visible as brown specks in the slightly hollow or faintly pithy center, especially when the fruit is overripe. Occasionally, cross- pollination by wild types [wild bananas] will result in a number of seeds in a normally seedless variety such as "Gros Michel," but never in the Cavendish type.