Talk:COC-IND-HIM-0100000001
More actions
Discussion for: COC-IND-HIM-0100000001 • View • Links • Related changes
Use this page for verification notes, disputes, and action items. Keep narrative content on the article.
Discussion
Evidentiary scope
This line is not in Coco Genes' own archived catalogue (`coc_site`); it is known only from a single saved Overgrow search-results dump (`coc_forums_resellers-0041`, `https://overgrow.com/search.json?q=cocogenes`), which returns short blurbs of posts across several Overgrow topics, not full threads. Four posts in that dump mention this line: romanoweed on 19 January 2026 (twice, in different topics, identical wording), romanoweed again on 1 March 2023, and Upstate on 26 February 2022 replying to a romanoweed post the dump does not otherwise capture in full ("this parvati was collected in 1920", quoted by Upstate). No product page, reseller listing or other forum source for this line was found. Nothing here is treated as more than what these blurbs say. Éloise 14:12, 23 September 2026 (+07)
The "1920" figure
Every post read that names this line prints the figure "1920": romanoweed calls it "a 1920 northern Indian from Cocogenes" (twice) and "the 1920 Indian from Cocogenes"; a post attributed to romanoweed and quoted by Upstate reads "this parvati was collected in 1920". No post read offers a different reading of the figure or explains what it denotes — whether a calendar year, a truncated season notation, or something else. The lane brief for this batch frames the line as "1920"/"19-20" Parvati, anticipating that a figure this old, on a seed lot otherwise undated, could be a misreading of a two-digit season notation (compare this batch's own "2020 Season" and "2021 season" tags on other Coco Genes lines). No source retrieved for this page actually offers that "19-20" reading; it is recorded here as an open possibility, not a documented second version. The printed form, "1920", is what the article and this page use. Éloise 14:12, 23 September 2026 (+07)
Editorial treatment
- Accession ID.
COC-IND-HIM-0100000001. The figure "1920" is not entered as the collection year: it is unverified, unexplained, and reads by every poster's own account as extraordinarily old for a seed lot passed hand-to-hand among growers within living memory. No source states an actual collection year or a shop season category (this line was never on cocogenes.com, so it carries no season tag either), so the ID tail is0000per this batch's ruling (RULINGS_2026-09-23.md §5), andcollection_dateis left empty. - Descriptive name.
"1920" Parvati General Population. The quotation marks carry over from how the line is actually named in this batch's worklist and in the posts themselves — a printed figure the posters repeat as the line's own label, not a claim this page makes about when it was collected. - Province. Entered as Himachal Pradesh on the strength of "parvati" as used in every post found, which reads as shorthand for a Parvati Valley origin (compare other Coco Genes lines named directly for Parvati Valley villages) rather than a stated place name in its own right. No village, district or coordinate is named anywhere, so those fields are empty.
- Collector / farmer. Neither is entered. Upstate's post says the seed "was given to CocoGenes by a very old lady that lived in one of the villages he stayed in" — she is not named, and nothing distinguishes her role as farmer from simply the person who gave Coco Genes the seed, so the claim is left in prose rather than forced into either field. Éloise 14:12, 23 September 2026 (+07)
Source discrepancies
Not applicable in the `has_discrepancy` sense used elsewhere in this batch — every post read agrees on the figure "1920" — but see "The '1920' figure" above for the reading this batch's brief anticipated and that this page's sources do not actually supply. Éloise 14:12, 23 September 2026 (+07)