Talk:Core collection
More actions
Discussion for: Core collection • View • Links • Related changes
Use this page for verification notes, disputes, and action items. Keep narrative content on the article.
Discussion
Sources
- Brown (1989), Genome 31: 818–824; Odong and colleagues (2013), Theoretical and Applied Genetics 126: 289–305; Engels and Ebert (2021), Plants 10: 1904; Engels and Visser (eds) (2003), A Guide to Effective Management of Germplasm Collections: the concept, its uses and its limits.
- Upadhyaya and Ortiz (2001), Theoretical and Applied Genetics 102: 1292–1298; Schoen and Brown (1993), PNAS 90: 10623–10627; Kim and colleagues (2007), Bioinformatics 23: 2155–2162; Thachuk and colleagues (2009), BMC Bioinformatics 10: 243; De Beukelaer and colleagues (2018), BMC Bioinformatics 19: 203; Yang and colleagues (2026), PLOS One 21: e0343623: methods and examples.
- Welling and colleagues (2016), Frontiers in Plant Science 7: 1113; Burton and colleagues (2022), Journal of Cannabis Research 4: 45; Schwartz, Smart and Stansell (2024); the USDA hemp handbook, version 4 (2025): cannabis.
Whether a cannabis core exists
The sentence that none had been published by November 2026 is limited to selections made from gene bank holdings and to publication. Four documents treat a core for cannabis as still to come: Welling and colleagues propose one in 2016, Burton and colleagues call for one in 2022, Stansell says in the 2024 Cornell factsheet that he wants to create one, and the USDA handbook of December 2025 states an objective without listing entries. Institutes in China and Russia hold large collections, and a core described only in a national journal could stand outside these four. Welling and colleagues mention privately managed collections, whose internal selections would not be published.
Words used for such sets
"Core collection", "core set", "core subset" and "core germplasm" are used for the same idea: "core subset" by Upadhyaya and Ortiz and by Thachuk and colleagues, "core set" in the PowerCore paper. Borin and colleagues use "core collection" for a set of 11 hemp varieties in a marker study: their Table 5 and results use the words, and their methods describe a company's breeding material. Burton and colleagues write "core germplasm resource". The panels of Petit and colleagues, Gloerfelt-Tarp and colleagues and Welling and colleagues (2020) are named panels by their authors.
Two rules for size
Brown's 10 per cent scales with the collection. Welling and colleagues' 400 comes from sampling theory for the species and is meant for several gene banks together. Upadhyaya and Ortiz's mini core takes about 1 per cent. These answer different questions, and the sources do not set them against one another.
Frankel and Brown
Frankel's words of 1984 are given as Engels and Ebert quote them; Odong and colleagues and the 2003 handbook also date the proposal to that year. The abstract of Brown (1989) gives the 10 per cent size, the sampling rule and the reserve and gives no retention figure. The 70 per cent figure is given as Yang and colleagues report it, citing Brown (1989).
The potato case
The 2003 handbook calls the potato work at the International Potato Center "a type of a core collection". The accessions removed there were duplicates, and the handbook's own definition of a core keeps the wider collection, so the two uses of the word differ.
Picture of the chickpea
The photograph shows a specimen in the Museum of Toulouse. It is a black-seeded chickpea, and its link to the ICRISAT holdings is only that of the species.