Scion Provenance Records: What to Write Down When a Cultivar's Identity Is Uncertain

Anyone who has grafted fruit or nut trees from scion wood bought, traded or gifted has met the problem: the tree fruits, and the fruit does not match the name on the label. Sometimes the description you were relying on is wrong, sometimes the tree is not what you think it is, and often you cannot tell which. Native-fruit growers feel this acutely, because many pawpaw, persimmon and nut cultivars were selected by individual growers and have moved from hand to hand for decades. This piece is about the one thing you can control: writing down where each scion came from, so that when identity is questioned you have a trail to follow. It is also about the limit of that trail, which is stated plainly below and again at the end.

What a record can and cannot do

A provenance record documents the history of a piece of wood: who supplied it, when, under what name, and what you did with it. That is valuable, because it tells you where a mix-up could have entered and whom to ask. It does not prove the tree is genetically the cultivar named on the tag. A carefully labeled scion can still have been mislabeled at the source, or at the source's source. Two other kinds of evidence go further, and neither is absolute. Comparing fruit and tree traits against a trusted reference tree of that cultivar supports an identification, but it is a judgment, since fruit varies with site, crop load, weather and ripeness. A DNA test against an authenticated reference sample is stronger evidence, provided the markers can actually tell the candidates apart.

Research on pawpaw shows what DNA work looks like. A 2010 paper in the Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science by Pomper and colleagues characterized pawpaw cultivars and advanced selections using simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers. It is also summarized in a 2017 presentation to the North American Pawpaw Growers Association by Robert Brannan, which reproduces a table of allelic fingerprints for 28 cultivars and 13 advanced selections and uses the markers to group varieties into genetic groups. Those are lab fingerprints, and even they have limits: the paper itself reports 39 unique fingerprints among the 41 genotypes tested, so two of them could not be told apart with that marker set. A notebook entry, however good, is a different kind of evidence, and it should be described that way.

Why identity gets disputed

A current discussion thread on the Growing Fruit forum, the long running thread on pawpaw varieties (the page we read carries posts from February 2026), shows the situation in ordinary terms. Growers there compare a cultivar's reported flavor and shape against what their own grafted tree produced and wonder whether a mislabel is involved. One grower checked their own purchase records to see where the scion wood had come from; that did not settle the question either way, but it narrowed it. Others point out that mislabeling happens at every nursery, and that one mislabeled trade can spread, with later trades traced back to a single early error. A participant also notes that even a published variety reference can contain errors about a cultivar's origin. We are not naming people or reproducing posts here; the takeaway is general. When identity is disputed, the first thing everyone reaches for is the paper trail, and the growers with a complete one are in a far better position than those without.

The provenance log: what to record

Keep one row per scion lot when wood arrives, and a second set of rows per tree when you graft it. A lot is wood from one supplier, received on one date, under one name as received, and from one source tree or bundle where you know it. Two cultivars in the same parcel are two lots.

• Lot ID: a short unique code, for example S-2026-03, used on every label and every row from now on.
• Name as received: exactly what the supplier called it, spelled the way they spelled it. Do not tidy it up.
• Supplier and contact: the person or business, how to reach them, and whether they sold, traded or gave the wood.
• Date received and date cut: the date it reached you and, if the supplier told you, when it was cut.
• Supplier's own source: whether they cut it from a named tree on their property, from a tree they got from someone else, or do not know. Ask and write down the answer, including "unknown".
• Condition and packing: how it arrived, any label that came with it, and anything uncertain such as a label that looked reused.
• Photos: the label and packaging as received, the wood next to a ruler, and the invoice or message thread if there is one. Photograph these before you do anything else with the wood.

The per-tree graft record

When you graft, the lot becomes trees, and this is where chain of custody often breaks. One lot may become six grafts on four rootstocks in two locations.

1. 1Give each grafted tree its own Tree ID, and each graft its own Graft ID that links the Tree ID, the limb and the Lot ID. One tree can carry several lots, so the graft, not the tree, is the unit that holds provenance.
2. 2Record the graft date, graft type, and the exact location of the graft on the tree: which rootstock tree, and for top-working which limb or height. A sketch with the limb labeled is enough.
3. 3Record the rootstock. A cultivar name does not tell you the rootstock. Copy the scion cultivar and the rootstock from the supplier's label, and when there is no label, write "unknown" rather than a guess.
4. 4Put a label on the new graft itself (not just on the stock) that carries the Lot ID, and photograph it in place.
5. 5Record the result a season later: whether the graft took, and when the first fruit or flower was seen.
6. 6If you pass wood onward, record the Graft ID it was cut from and treat it as a new lot: your name as supplier, your Lot ID, and the full upstream chain noted in the row.

Chain of custody across swaps

Swaps at grafting days and through forums are how many native-fruit cultivars spread, and they are also where records most often go missing. Wood changes hands in unlabeled bundles, labels get rewritten, and two lots sit in the same bag. A few habits keep the chain intact.

• Label each bundle at the moment you receive it, before it touches anything else, with the Lot ID and the name as received.
• Never combine lots in one bag, even if the names match.
• Write down who handed it to you, and who handed it to them, as far back as they can tell you.
• When you send wood on, send the upstream notes with it, including the parts that are uncertain. Passing on a clean-looking name that you do not actually trust is how a single error becomes a cascade.
• Keep rejected or doubtful lots in the log with a note rather than deleting them. A doubtful lot that later turns out fine is useful, and so is one that turns out to be a problem.

Worked example (illustration only: all details invented)

Suppose you receive wood labeled with a cultivar name at a spring swap from a grower who says they cut it from their own tree. You log: Lot S-2026-03, name as received, supplier a named grower, swap day date, supplier's source "their own tree, they believe from a nursery purchase, nursery unknown". You photograph the label. You graft four pieces on to seedling rootstocks you numbered earlier, giving trees G-11 to G-14, each tagged with S-2026-03. Three seasons later G-12 fruits and the fruit looks different from published descriptions. Now the log lets you do something specific: you can ask the swap grower what they remember, compare G-11 to G-14 when they fruit to see whether all four match each other, and send a fruit sample to a grower with a trusted reference tree. Before comparing, check that the fruit came from a branch above the graft union (not a rootstock sucker), and compare similarly ripe fruit across more than one season. If all four then match each other but not the description, that may indicate the problem is upstream of you, or that the description itself is off. If they differ, that may indicate the wood was mixed somewhere, on your bench or before it reached you, and the label photos and the supplier's notes are where you start looking.

How to talk about an uncertain cultivar

Records also change how you describe the tree to others. A tag that says "Cultivar X" claims more than you know. A tag that says "received as Cultivar X, lot S-2026-03, unverified" claims exactly what you can support. That second form is more useful to anyone you pass wood to, and it keeps you honest about what the paper trail does and does not show.

To restate the limit: provenance records preserve the history of the wood, not its genetics. They can show that a mix-up probably did not happen on your bench, but they cannot show the supplier's tree was true to name. Evidence about genetic identity comes from elsewhere: trait comparisons against a trusted reference tree support an identification, and a sufficiently discriminating DNA test against an authenticated reference is stronger still.

Paper first, an app if you want it

A notebook with a lot page and a tree page works fine, and so does a spreadsheet with a column for every field above. If you would rather keep this attached to your trees, CanopyTwin lets you map each tree on your property and keep its photos, notes and history together on an iPhone, so the label photo and the graft date stay with the right tree. There is a 30-day free trial. It is a convenience, not a requirement, and the records above are worth keeping with or without it.