So in my last blog post about De La Senyora (Hivernenca): https://www.figboss.com/post/de-la-senyora-hivernenca-mp-the-black-madeira-killer -- I posted some Pons quotes. These are either from email from him personally or from his English version book.
"La Hivernenca, Coll de dama Ciutat, De la Senyora, Margalera, and Morro de Bou, are genetically equal varieties by dendogram, but different molecularly and agronomically, maturation, size, shape, etc. so they are considered different varieties. DE LA SENYORA variety is called by different names, as we have seen in synonyms, this being provoked by the great variability which affects the morphological characteristics of the figs and to a lesser degree the foliage."
"In reference to Coll de Dama Ciutat, "This variety, which was unknown by Estelrich, is sometimes known as Hivernenca, - with which it shares its origin - , but it is distinguished from this variety by its appearance, taste, ripening period, peduncle etc."
"The BERGUNYA variety is originally from Banyalbufar. Estelrich names Bergunya as a synonym of Hivernenca, with which is shares a great similarity, but in Banyalbufar and adjoining areas, the variety can be found and observed as being different from Hivernenca, using the descriptors of the fruit, leaves, both agronomical and biological characteristics which discover a significant difference in the variety such as the more pear-shaped form of the figs, lesser dimensions in weight, and more resistant to the opening of the eye and a finer, thinner skin."
I'm surprised no one brought it up in that last thread, but isn't this an accurate way to describe Hardy Chicago or "Mt Etna" types? Without testing, it's fair to assume that they are genetically equal by dendogram, like we've seen here:
But different molecularly, agronomically & biologically. This being provoked by the great variability which affects the morphological characteristics of the figs and to a lesser degree the foliage. I'm not smart enough to fully understand that, but in short I think you could dumb it down to that they share the same genetics, but show different characteristics. So to all the people out there that have said, "it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it must be a duck," those people are wrong, but also... all of the people who are against lumping are also wrong.
It's been obvious to me for really only the last few years (although people still give me crap for how I've perceived synonyms as ducks many years ago) that something like Azores Dark & Hardy Chicago are different figs, but if they were tested genetically, I think chances are very high that they're of the same dendogram (to what extent I don't know). This is why I believe lumping is important. If they're under the same dendogram, aren't they under the same umbrella and therefore it's something that is absolutely worth knowing?
Yes.. I do believe in the possibility that there are some figs within the community that have different names, but also could be the exact same fig with no differences, which is why I'd like to have a discussion about what influences the "great variability" that figs clearly possess that Pons and others on OurFigs.com have mentioned. Is it adaptation to a specific location? Would they still share the same genetics in this case? What else?