Accessions evaluated for: Black raspberry frt gloss 2010 in study RUBUS.Dossett.Finn.BlackRaspberryPhenology.2016

Selected item(s) below:

	ID	ACCESSION	NAME	TAXONOMY	ORIGIN	AVAILABILITY	VALUE	OBSERVATIONS	NOTE	INVENTORY
0	1448737	PI 553765	R. occidentalis MPW 113	Rubus occidentalis L.	Michigan, United States	Not Available	1.9	mean=1.9; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 553765 **
1	1730093	PI 652976	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-034	Rubus occidentalis L.	Georgia, United States	Not Available	1.9	mean=1.9; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 652976 **
2	1733180	PI 653317	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-113	Rubus occidentalis L.	South Dakota, United States	Not Available	1.9	mean=1.9; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653317 **
3	1739851	PI 653380	R. occidentalis Tennessee	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	2.4	mean=2.4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653380 **
4	1574260	PI 618387	'Mac Black'	Rubus occidentalis L.	Michigan, United States	Not Available	2.5	mean=2.5; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 618387 **
5	1733167	PI 653307	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-091	Rubus occidentalis L.	Nebraska, United States	Not Available	2.5	mean=2.5; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653307 **
6	1733186	PI 653321	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-123	Rubus occidentalis L.	Minnesota, United States	Not Available	2.5	mean=2.5; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653321 **
7	1733176	PI 653314	R. occidentalis Yankton County HDF-2007-108	Rubus occidentalis L.	South Dakota, United States	Not Available	2.6	mean=2.6; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653314 **
8	1739807	PI 653340	R. occidentalis Maryland ORUS 3807	Rubus occidentalis L.	Maryland, United States	Not Available	2.6	mean=2.6; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653340 **
9	1739864	PI 653393	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3911	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	2.6	mean=2.6; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653393 **
10	1739872	PI 653401	R. occidentalis West Virginia ORUS 3930	Rubus occidentalis L.	West Virginia, United States	Not Available	2.6	mean=2.6; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653401 **
11	1730091	PI 652975	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-031	Rubus occidentalis L.	Georgia, United States	Historic	2.7	mean=2.7; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 652975 **
12	1739799	PI 653333	R. occidentalis Indiana ORUS 3798	Rubus occidentalis L.	Indiana, United States	Not Available	2.7	mean=2.7; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653333 **
13	1739820	PI 651850	R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3824	Rubus occidentalis L.	Minnesota, United States	Not Available	2.7	mean=2.7; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 651850 **
14	1739840	PI 653369	R. occidentalis Pennsylvania ORUS 3851	Rubus occidentalis L.	Pennsylvania, United States	Not Available	2.7	mean=2.7; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653369 **
15	1733188	PI 653323	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-125	Rubus occidentalis L.	Minnesota, United States	Not Available	2.8	mean=2.8; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653323 **
16	1739793	PI 653327	R. occidentalis Connecticut ORUS 3779	Rubus occidentalis L.	Connecticut, United States	Not Available	2.8	mean=2.8; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653327 **
17	1739806	PI 653339	R. occidentalis Maryland ORUS 3805	Rubus occidentalis L.	Maryland, United States	Not Available	2.8	mean=2.8; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653339 **
18	1739810	PI 653343	R. occidentalis Maryland ORUS 3811	Rubus occidentalis L.	Maryland, United States	Not Available	2.8	mean=2.8; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653343 **
19	1739819	PI 653351	R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3823	Rubus occidentalis L.	Minnesota, United States	Not Available	2.8	mean=2.8; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653351 **
20	1730089	PI 652974	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-029	Rubus occidentalis L.	South Carolina, United States	Not Available	2.9	mean=2.9; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 652974 **
21	1733185	PI 651847	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-122	Rubus occidentalis L.	Minnesota, United States	Not Available	2.9	mean=2.9; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 651847 **
22	1739853	PI 653382	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3883	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	2.9	mean=2.9; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653382 **
23	1733154	PI 653299	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-071	Rubus occidentalis L.	Kansas, United States	Not Available	3	mean=3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653299 **
24	1739802	PI 653336	R. occidentalis Indiana ORUS 3801	Rubus occidentalis L.	Indiana, United States	Not Available	3	mean=3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653336 **
25	1739808	PI 653341	R. occidentalis Maryland ORUS 3808	Rubus occidentalis L.	Maryland, United States	Not Available	3	mean=3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653341 **
26	1739832	PI 653361	R. occidentalis New York ORUS 3840	Rubus occidentalis L.	New York, United States	Not Available	3	mean=3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653361 **
27	1730094	PI 653294	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-035	Rubus occidentalis L.	Georgia, United States	Not Available	3.1	mean=3.1; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653294 **
28	1733177	PI 653315	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-110	Rubus occidentalis L.	South Dakota, United States	Not Available	3.1	mean=3.1; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653315 **
29	1739843	PI 653372	R. occidentalis Pennsylvania ORUS 3855	Rubus occidentalis L.	Pennsylvania, United States	Not Available	3.1	mean=3.1; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653372 **
30	1448736	PI 553764	R. occidentalis MPW 120	Rubus occidentalis L.	Michigan, United States	Not Available	3.2	mean=3.2; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 553764 **
31	1739798	PI 653332	R. occidentalis Indiana ORUS 3797	Rubus occidentalis L.	Indiana, United States	Not Available	3.2	mean=3.2; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653332 **
32	1739803	PI 651848	R. occidentalis Kentucky ORUS 3802	Rubus occidentalis L.	Kentucky, United States	Not Available	3.2	mean=3.2; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 651848 **
33	1739818	PI 653350	R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3821	Rubus occidentalis L.	Maine, United States	Not Available	3.2	mean=3.2; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653350 **
34	1739829	PI 653358	R. occidentalis North Carolina ORUS 3837	Rubus occidentalis L.	North Carolina, United States	Not Available	3.2	mean=3.2; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653358 **
35	1739857	PI 653386	R. occidentalis Tennessee	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	3.2	mean=3.2; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653386 **
36	1739873	PI 653402	R. occidentalis West Virginia ORUS 3931	Rubus occidentalis L.	West Virginia, United States	Not Available	3.2	mean=3.2; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653402 **
37	1448712	PI 553740	'Munger'	Rubus occidentalis L.	Ohio, United States	Not Available	3.3	mean=3.3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 553740 **
38	1730105	PI 653298	R. occidentalis HD-2007-046	Rubus occidentalis L.	Georgia, United States	Not Available	3.3	mean=3.3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653298 **
39	1739792	PI 653326	R. occidentalis Ontario ORUS 3778	Rubus occidentalis L.	Ontario, Canada	Not Available	3.3	mean=3.3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653326 **
40	1739804	PI 653337	R. occidentalis Massachusetts ORUS 3803	Rubus occidentalis L.	Massachusetts, United States	Not Available	3.3	mean=3.3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653337 **
41	1739812	PI 653345	R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3814	Rubus occidentalis L.	Maine, United States	Not Available	3.3	mean=3.3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653345 **
42	1739814	PI 653346	R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3816	Rubus occidentalis L.	Maine, United States	Not Available	3.3	mean=3.3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653346 **
43	1739824	PI 653354	R. occidentalis Minnesota ORUS 3828	Rubus occidentalis L.	Minnesota, United States	Not Available	3.3	mean=3.3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653354 **
44	1448714	PI 553742	'Jewel'	Rubus occidentalis L.	New York, United States	Not Available	3.4	mean=3.4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 553742 **
45	1730087	PI 652973	R. occidentalis Glassy Mountain 2	Rubus occidentalis L.	South Carolina, United States	Not Available	3.4	mean=3.4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 652973 **
46	1733178	PI 653316	R. occidentalis Union Grove HDF-2007-111	Rubus occidentalis L.	South Dakota, United States	Not Available	3.4	mean=3.4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653316 **
47	1739791	PI 653325	R. occidentalis New Brunswick ORUS 3777	Rubus occidentalis L.	New Brunswick, Canada	Not Available	3.4	mean=3.4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653325 **
48	1739826	PI 651852	R. occidentalis Missouri ORUS 3830	Rubus occidentalis L.	Missouri, United States	Not Available	3.4	mean=3.4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 651852 **
49	1739827	PI 653356	R. occidentalis Missouri ORUS 3832	Rubus occidentalis L.	Missouri, United States	Not Available	3.4	mean=3.4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653356 **
50	1739835	PI 653364	R. occidentalis New York ORUS 3844	Rubus occidentalis L.	New York, United States	Not Available	3.4	mean=3.4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653364 **
51	1739866	PI 653395	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3914	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	3.4	mean=3.4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653395 **
52	1739795	PI 653329	R. occidentalis Illinois ORUS 3781	Rubus occidentalis L.	Illinois, United States	Not Available	3.5	mean=3.5; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653329 **
53	1739805	PI 653338	R. occidentalis Massachusetts ORUS 3804	Rubus occidentalis L.	Massachusetts, United States	Not Available	3.5	mean=3.5; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653338 **
54	1739815	PI 653347	R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3817	Rubus occidentalis L.	Maine, United States	Not Available	3.5	mean=3.5; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653347 **
55	1739822	PI 653353	R. occidentalis Minnesota ORUS 3826	Rubus occidentalis L.	Minnesota, United States	Not Available	3.5	mean=3.5; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653353 **
56	1739823	PI 651851	R. occidentalis Minnesota ORUS 3827	Rubus occidentalis L.	Minnesota, United States	Not Available	3.5	mean=3.5; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 651851 **
57	1739831	PI 653360	R. occidentalis New York ORUS 3839	Rubus occidentalis L.	New York, United States	Not Available	3.5	mean=3.5; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653360 **
58	1739834	PI 653363	R. occidentalis New YorkORUS 3843	Rubus occidentalis L.	New York, United States	Not Available	3.5	mean=3.5; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653363 **
59	1739841	PI 653370	R. occidentalis Pennsylvania ORUS 3852	Rubus occidentalis L.	Pennsylvania, United States	Not Available	3.5	mean=3.5; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653370 **
60	1739871	PI 653400	R. occidentalis West Virginia ORUS 3929	Rubus occidentalis L.	West Virginia, United States	Not Available	3.5	mean=3.5; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653400 **
61	1730102	PI 653296	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-063	Rubus occidentalis L.	Alabama, United States	Not Available	3.6	mean=3.6; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653296 **
62	1733168	PI 653308	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-092	Rubus occidentalis L.	Nebraska, United States	Not Available	3.6	mean=3.6; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653308 **
63	1739800	PI 653334	R. occidentalis Indiana ORUS 3799	Rubus occidentalis L.	Indiana, United States	Not Available	3.6	mean=3.6; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653334 **
64	1739817	PI 653349	R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3820	Rubus occidentalis L.	Maine, United States	Not Available	3.6	mean=3.6; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653349 **
65	1739852	PI 653381	R. occidentalis Tennessee	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	3.6	mean=3.6; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653381 **
66	1739861	PI 653390	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3906	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	3.6	mean=3.6; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653390 **
67	1872001	PI 672639	R. occidentalis Newton Falls # 157	Rubus occidentalis L.	Ohio, United States	Not Available	3.6	mean=3.6; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 672639 **
68	1733170	PI 653310	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-096	Rubus occidentalis L.	Nebraska, United States	Not Available	3.7	mean=3.7; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653310 **
69	1739794	PI 653328	R. occidentalis Iowa ORUS 3780	Rubus occidentalis L.	Iowa, United States	Not Available	3.7	mean=3.7; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653328 **
70	1739828	PI 653357	R. occidentalis North Carolina ORUS 3835	Rubus occidentalis L.	North Carolina, United States	Not Available	3.7	mean=3.7; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653357 **
71	1739844	PI 653373	R. occidentalis Pennsylvania ORUS 3856	Rubus occidentalis L.	Pennsylvania, United States	Not Available	3.7	mean=3.7; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653373 **
72	1739847	PI 653376	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3864 3865	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	3.7	mean=3.7; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653376 **
73	1739863	PI 653392	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3909	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	3.7	mean=3.7; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653392 **
74	1739870	PI 653399	R. occidentalis Wisconsin ORUS 3926	Rubus occidentalis L.	Wisconsin, United States	Not Available	3.7	mean=3.7; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653399 **
75	1871997	PI 672635	R. occidentalis Benton Harbor	Rubus occidentalis L.	Michigan, United States	Not Available	3.7	mean=3.7; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 672635 **
76	1872001	PI 672639	R. occidentalis Newton Falls # 157	Rubus occidentalis L.	Ohio, United States	Not Available	3.7	mean=3.7; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 672639 **
77	1733169	PI 653309	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-094	Rubus occidentalis L.	Nebraska, United States	Not Available	3.8	mean=3.8; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653309 **
78	1739845	PI 653374	R. occidentalisTennessee ORUS 3857, 3858	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	3.8	mean=3.8; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653374 **
79	1739850	PI 653379	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3871	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	3.8	mean=3.8; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653379 **
80	1739865	PI 653394	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3912	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	3.8	mean=3.8; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653394 **
81	1739797	PI 653331	R. occidentalis Indiana ORUS 3796	Rubus occidentalis L.	Indiana, United States	Not Available	3.9	mean=3.9; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653331 **
82	1739855	PI 653384	R. occidentalis Tennessee	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	3.9	mean=3.9; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653384 **
83	1871998	PI 672636	R. occidentalis Okemos	Rubus occidentalis L.	Michigan, United States	Not Available	3.9	mean=3.9; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 672636 **
84	1739809	PI 653342	R. occidentalis Maryland ORUS 3810	Rubus occidentalis L.	Maryland, United States	Not Available	4	mean=4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653342 **
85	1739811	PI 653344	R. occidentalis Maryland ORUS 3812	Rubus occidentalis L.	Maryland, United States	Not Available	4	mean=4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653344 **
86	1739816	PI 653348	R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3819	Rubus occidentalis L.	Maine, United States	Not Available	4	mean=4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653348 **
87	1739845	PI 653374	R. occidentalisTennessee ORUS 3857, 3858	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	4	mean=4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653374 **
88	1739860	PI 653389	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3904	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	4	mean=4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653389 **
89	1739867	PI 653396	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3916	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	4	mean=4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653396 **
90	1733161	PI 651846	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-083	Rubus occidentalis L.	Kansas, United States	Not Available	4.1	mean=4.1; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 651846 **
91	1739813	PI 651849	R. occidentalis Maine ORUS 3815	Rubus occidentalis L.	Maine, United States	Not Available	4.1	mean=4.1; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 651849 **
92	1882002	PI 672664	R. occidentalis ORUS 3841-1	Rubus occidentalis L.	Oregon, United States	Not Available	4.1	mean=4.1; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 672664 **
93	1739796	PI 653330	R. occidentalis Indiana ORUS 3794	Rubus occidentalis L.	Indiana, United States	Not Available	4.2	mean=4.2; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653330 **
94	1739833	PI 653362	R. occidentalis New YorkORUS 3842	Rubus occidentalis L.	New York, United States	Not Available	4.2	mean=4.2; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653362 **
95	1739846	PI 653375	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3859-3862	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	4.2	mean=4.2; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653375 **
96	1739868	PI 653397	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3918	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	4.2	mean=4.2; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653397 **
97	1739869	PI 653398	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3919	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	4.2	mean=4.2; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653398 **
98	1874004	PI 672643	R. occidentalis #68	Rubus occidentalis L.	Maryland, United States	Not Available	4.2	mean=4.2; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 672643 **
99	1733165	PI 653305	R. occidentalis HDF-2007-088	Rubus occidentalis L.	Nebraska, United States	Not Available	4.3	mean=4.3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653305 **
100	1739839	PI 653368	R. occidentalis Ohio ORUS 3849	Rubus occidentalis L.	Ohio, United States	Not Available	4.3	mean=4.3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653368 **
101	1739842	PI 653371	R. occidentalis Pennsylvania ORUS 3853	Rubus occidentalis L.	Pennsylvania, United States	Not Available	4.3	mean=4.3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653371 **
102	1739858	PI 653387	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3900	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	4.3	mean=4.3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653387 **
103	1739861	PI 653390	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3906	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	4.3	mean=4.3; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653390 **
104	1739849	PI 653378	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3868	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	4.4	mean=4.4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653378 **
105	1739856	PI 653385	R. occidentalis Tennessee	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Not Available	4.4	mean=4.4; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653385 **
106	1730085	PI 652971	R. occidentalis Glassy Mountain 1	Rubus occidentalis L.	South Carolina, United States	Not Available	4.5	mean=4.5; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 652971 **
107	1739801	PI 653335	R. occidentalis Indiana ORUS 3800	Rubus occidentalis L.	Indiana, United States	Not Available	4.6	mean=4.6; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653335 **
108	1739830	PI 653359	R. occidentalis North Carolina ORUS 3838	Rubus occidentalis L.	North Carolina, United States	Not Available	4.6	mean=4.6; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653359 **
109	1739848	PI 653377	R. occidentalis Tennessee ORUS 3866 3867	Rubus occidentalis L.	Tennessee, United States	Historic	4.7	mean=4.7; sample size=25	Fruit were scored for gloss on a 1–5 scale (1 = most pubescent, 5 = most glossy). Data collected in 2010	PI 653377 **