Accessions evaluated for: Black raspberry frt gloss 2009 in study RUBUS.Dossett.Finn.BlackRaspberryPhenology.2016




Selected item(s) below:


IDACCESSIONNAMETAXONOMYORIGINAVAILABILITYIMAGEVALUEOBSERVATIONSNOTEINVENTORY
01739840PI 653369 R. occidentalis Pennsylvania ORUS 3851Rubus occidentalis L. Pennsylvania, United StatesNot Available1.7mean=1.7; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653369 **
11739851PI 653380 R. occidentalis TennesseeRubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available2.1mean=2.1; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653380 **
21739806PI 653339 R. occidentalis Maryland ORUS 3805Rubus occidentalis L. Maryland, United StatesNot Available2.2mean=2.2; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653339 **
31739810PI 653343 R. occidentalis Maryland ORUS 3811Rubus occidentalis L. Maryland, United StatesNot Available2.2mean=2.2; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653343 **
41739843PI 653372 R. occidentalis Pennsylvania ORUS 3855Rubus occidentalis L. Pennsylvania, United StatesNot Available2.2mean=2.2; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653372 **
51739832PI 653361 R. occidentalis New York ORUS 3840Rubus occidentalis L. New York, United StatesNot Available2.3mean=2.3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653361 **
61739853PI 653382 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3883Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available2.3mean=2.3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653382 **
71739864PI 653393 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3911Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available2.3mean=2.3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653393 **
81739872PI 653401 R. occidentalis West Virginia ORUS 3930Rubus occidentalis L. West Virginia, United StatesNot Available2.3mean=2.3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653401 **
91739798PI 653332 R. occidentalis Indiana ORUS 3797Rubus occidentalis L. Indiana, United StatesNot Available2.4mean=2.4; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653332 **
101739799PI 653333 R. occidentalis Indiana ORUS 3798Rubus occidentalis L. Indiana, United StatesNot Available2.4mean=2.4; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653333 **
111739812PI 653345 R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3814Rubus occidentalis L. Maine, United StatesNot Available2.4mean=2.4; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653345 **
121739795PI 653329 R. occidentalis Illinois ORUS 3781Rubus occidentalis L. Illinois, United StatesNot Available2.5mean=2.5; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653329 **
131739815PI 653347 R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3817Rubus occidentalis L. Maine, United StatesNot Available2.5mean=2.5; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653347 **
141739793PI 653327 R. occidentalis Connecticut ORUS 3779Rubus occidentalis L. Connecticut, United StatesNot Available2.6mean=2.6; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653327 **
151739819PI 653351 R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3823Rubus occidentalis L. Minnesota, United StatesNot Available2.6mean=2.6; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653351 **
161739852PI 653381 R. occidentalis TennesseeRubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available2.6mean=2.6; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653381 **
171574260PI 618387 'Mac Black'Rubus occidentalis L. Michigan, United StatesNot AvailableLEAF2.7mean=2.7; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 618387 **
181739797PI 653331 R. occidentalis Indiana ORUS 3796Rubus occidentalis L. Indiana, United StatesNot Available2.7mean=2.7; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653331 **
191739802PI 653336 R. occidentalis Indiana ORUS 3801Rubus occidentalis L. Indiana, United StatesNot Available2.7mean=2.7; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653336 **
201739804PI 653337 R. occidentalis Massachusetts ORUS 3803Rubus occidentalis L. Massachusetts, United StatesNot Available2.7mean=2.7; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653337 **
211739807PI 653340 R. occidentalis Maryland ORUS 3807Rubus occidentalis L. Maryland, United StatesNot Available2.7mean=2.7; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653340 **
221739814PI 653346 R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3816Rubus occidentalis L. Maine, United StatesNot Available2.7mean=2.7; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653346 **
231739818PI 653350 R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3821Rubus occidentalis L. Maine, United StatesNot Available2.7mean=2.7; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653350 **
241739828PI 653357 R. occidentalis North Carolina ORUS 3835Rubus occidentalis L. North Carolina, United StatesNot Available2.7mean=2.7; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653357 **
251739824PI 653354 R. occidentalis Minnesota ORUS 3828Rubus occidentalis L. Minnesota, United StatesNot Available2.8mean=2.8; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653354 **
261739835PI 653364 R. occidentalis New York ORUS 3844Rubus occidentalis L. New York, United StatesNot Available2.8mean=2.8; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653364 **
271739829PI 653358 R. occidentalis North Carolina ORUS 3837Rubus occidentalis L. North Carolina, United StatesNot Available2.9mean=2.9; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653358 **
281739865PI 653394 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3912Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available2.9mean=2.9; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653394 **
291739873PI 653402 R. occidentalis West Virginia ORUS 3931Rubus occidentalis L. West Virginia, United StatesNot Available2.9mean=2.9; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653402 **
301448714PI 553742 'Jewel'Rubus occidentalis L. New York, United StatesNot AvailableLEAF3mean=3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 553742 **
311739792PI 653326 R. occidentalis Ontario ORUS 3778Rubus occidentalis L. Ontario, CanadaNot Available3mean=3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653326 **
321739805PI 653338 R. occidentalis Massachusetts ORUS 3804Rubus occidentalis L. Massachusetts, United StatesNot Available3mean=3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653338 **
331739817PI 653349 R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3820Rubus occidentalis L. Maine, United StatesNot Available3mean=3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653349 **
341739820PI 651850 R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3824Rubus occidentalis L. Minnesota, United StatesNot Available3mean=3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 651850 **
351739826PI 651852 R. occidentalis Missouri ORUS 3830Rubus occidentalis L. Missouri, United StatesNot Available3mean=3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 651852 **
361739860PI 653389 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3904Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available3mean=3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653389 **
371448712PI 553740 'Munger'Rubus occidentalis L. Ohio, United StatesNot AvailableImage3.1mean=3.1; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 553740 **
381739803PI 651848 R. occidentalis Kentucky ORUS 3802Rubus occidentalis L. Kentucky, United StatesNot Available3.1mean=3.1; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 651848 **
391739808PI 653341 R. occidentalis Maryland ORUS 3808Rubus occidentalis L. Maryland, United StatesNot Available3.1mean=3.1; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653341 **
401739823PI 651851 R. occidentalis Minnesota ORUS 3827Rubus occidentalis L. Minnesota, United StatesNot Available3.1mean=3.1; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 651851 **
411739834PI 653363 R. occidentalis New YorkORUS 3843Rubus occidentalis L. New York, United StatesNot Available3.1mean=3.1; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653363 **
421739870PI 653399 R. occidentalis Wisconsin ORUS 3926Rubus occidentalis L. Wisconsin, United StatesNot Available3.1mean=3.1; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653399 **
431739831PI 653360 R. occidentalis New York ORUS 3839Rubus occidentalis L. New York, United StatesNot Available3.2mean=3.2; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653360 **
441739791PI 653325 R. occidentalis New Brunswick ORUS 3777Rubus occidentalis L. New Brunswick, CanadaNot Available3.3mean=3.3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653325 **
451739813PI 651849 R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3815Rubus occidentalis L. Maine, United StatesNot Available3.3mean=3.3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 651849 **
461739842PI 653371 R. occidentalis Pennsylvania ORUS 3853Rubus occidentalis L. Pennsylvania, United StatesNot Available3.3mean=3.3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653371 **
471739861PI 653390 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3906Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available3.3mean=3.3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653390 **
481739863PI 653392 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3909Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available3.3mean=3.3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653392 **
491739827PI 653356 R. occidentalis Missouri ORUS 3832Rubus occidentalis L. Missouri, United StatesNot Available3.4mean=3.4; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653356 **
501739844PI 653373 R. occidentalis Pennsylvania ORUS 3856Rubus occidentalis L. Pennsylvania, United StatesNot Available3.4mean=3.4; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653373 **
511739855PI 653384 R. occidentalis TennesseeRubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available3.4mean=3.4; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653384 **
521739794PI 653328 R. occidentalis Iowa ORUS 3780Rubus occidentalis L. Iowa, United StatesNot Available3.5mean=3.5; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653328 **
531739809PI 653342 R. occidentalis Maryland ORUS 3810Rubus occidentalis L. Maryland, United StatesNot Available3.5mean=3.5; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653342 **
541739866PI 653395 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3914Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available3.5mean=3.5; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653395 **
551739867PI 653396 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3916Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available3.5mean=3.5; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653396 **
561739868PI 653397 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3918Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available3.5mean=3.5; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653397 **
571739871PI 653400 R. occidentalis West Virginia ORUS 3929Rubus occidentalis L. West Virginia, United StatesNot Available3.5mean=3.5; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653400 **
581739796PI 653330 R. occidentalis Indiana ORUS 3794Rubus occidentalis L. Indiana, United StatesNot Available3.6mean=3.6; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653330 **
591739839PI 653368 R. occidentalis Ohio ORUS 3849Rubus occidentalis L. Ohio, United StatesNot Available3.6mean=3.6; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653368 **
601739847PI 653376 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3864 3865Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available3.6mean=3.6; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653376 **
611739857PI 653386 R. occidentalis TennesseeRubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available3.6mean=3.6; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653386 **
621739846PI 653375 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3859-3862Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available3.7mean=3.7; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653375 **
631882002PI 672664 R. occidentalis ORUS 3841-1Rubus occidentalis L. Oregon, United StatesNot Available3.7mean=3.7; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 672664 **
641739800PI 653334 R. occidentalis Indiana ORUS 3799Rubus occidentalis L. Indiana, United StatesNot Available3.8mean=3.8; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653334 **
651739861PI 653390 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3906Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available3.8mean=3.8; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653390 **
661739869PI 653398 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3919Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available3.8mean=3.8; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653398 **
671874004PI 672643 R. occidentalis #68Rubus occidentalis L. Maryland, United StatesNot Available3.8mean=3.8; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 672643 **
681739822PI 653353 R. occidentalis Minnesota ORUS 3826Rubus occidentalis L. Minnesota, United StatesNot Available3.9mean=3.9; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653353 **
691739858PI 653387 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3900Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available3.9mean=3.9; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653387 **
701739848PI 653377 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3866 3867Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesHistoric4mean=4; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653377 **
711739856PI 653385 R. occidentalis TennesseeRubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available4mean=4; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653385 **
721739816PI 653348 R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3819Rubus occidentalis L. Maine, United StatesNot Available4.1mean=4.1; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653348 **
731739841PI 653370 R. occidentalis Pennsylvania ORUS 3852Rubus occidentalis L. Pennsylvania, United StatesNot Available4.1mean=4.1; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653370 **
741739845PI 653374 R. occidentalisTennessee ORUS 3857, 3858Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available4.1mean=4.1; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653374 **
751739850PI 653379 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3871Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available4.2mean=4.2; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653379 **
761739849PI 653378 R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3868Rubus occidentalis L. Tennessee, United StatesNot Available4.3mean=4.3; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653378 **
771739811PI 653344 R. occidentalis Maryland ORUS 3812Rubus occidentalis L. Maryland, United StatesNot Available4.4mean=4.4; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653344 **
781739833PI 653362 R. occidentalis New YorkORUS 3842Rubus occidentalis L. New York, United StatesNot Available4.5mean=4.5; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653362 **
791739801PI 653335 R. occidentalis Indiana ORUS 3800Rubus occidentalis L. Indiana, United StatesNot Available4.8mean=4.8; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653335 **
801739830PI 653359 R. occidentalis North Carolina ORUS 3838Rubus occidentalis L. North Carolina, United StatesNot Available4.8mean=4.8; sample size=25Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1-5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data was collected on 25 fruit in 2009.PI 653359 **