Where the sources disagree
Sources sometimes say different things about the same parent-child link. This site records that as a disagreement rather than picking one and drawing the line. Every one recorded is listed here.
Which account the page text follows, and why, is written at the end of each entry. The other is not called a mistake. Where the source itself is damaged — a mistyped number, a character lost in digitisation — that is handled separately, on the page of flaws in the sources.
Six entries are listed here. The numbering jumps from D001 to D008 because questions that were settled while checking (D004 and D005) have been removed, and the gaps are left unclosed so that the same question is not raised again later. The disagreements fall into three kinds: the year of the cross, how a line number is written, and whether two records refer to the same variety. In none of them is there enough to decide that one source is wrong.
Flaws in the sources ・The historical documents are not written the same way ・Our sourcing policy
Which parent of Koshihikari was the seed parent D001
- Seed parent Norin No.22, pollen parent Norin No.1 Sources: イネ品種データベース検索システム「越南17号（コシヒカリ）」品種来歴文書 / イネ品種データベース検索システム 交配系譜図「越南17号」 / 戦後日本のイノベーション100選「コシヒカリ」経緯
- Seed parent Norin No.1, pollen parent Norin No.22 Sources: コシヒカリのエピソード1 〜交配から系統の育成まで〜
The NARO historical document states in words that Norin No.22 was the seed parent and Norin No.1 the pollen parent. Niigata Prefecture, which bred the variety, states the reverse. The diagram follows the historical document; Niigata's account is recorded here. We call neither wrong.
The year of the cross D002
- 1944 Sources: コシヒカリのエピソード1 〜交配から系統の育成まで〜 / 新潟コシヒカリの軌跡 〜誕生から定着に至るまで〜 / 戦後日本のイノベーション100選「コシヒカリ」経緯
- 1945 Sources: イネ品種データベース検索システム「越南17号（コシヒカリ）」品種来歴文書 / イネ品種データベース検索システム「越南14号（ホウネンワセ）」品種来歴文書 / イネ品種データベース検索システム「奥羽224号（ハツニシキ）」品種来歴文書 / イネ品種データベース検索システム「奥羽225号（ヤマセニシキ）」品種来歴文書
The NARO documents appear to reproduce the prefectures' original applications for recommended-variety status and give 1945 — and the documents for Honenwase, Hatsunishiki and Yamasenishiki, all from the same cross, give 1945 as well, four in agreement. Niigata's own account says the cross was made in 1944 and that the 1945 planting was skipped for lack of hands. We use 1944 and note the discrepancy.
How the seed parent of Norin No.1 is written D003
- Moritawase, written 森多早生 Sources: イネ品種データベース検索システム 交配系譜図「北陸4号」
- Moritawase, written 森田早稲 Sources: イネ品種データベース検索システム「北陸4号（水稲農林1号）」品種来歴文書
The two spellings appear in the same NARO database, in the pedigree field and in the historical document respectively. We use the pedigree field's spelling and list the other.
How Kamenoo No.4 is written D006
- 亀の尾4号 Sources: イネ品種データベース検索システム 交配系譜図「陸羽132号」
- 亀ノ尾4号 (the common spelling)
We follow the NARO database. The commonly seen spelling uses a katakana no; we prefer the spelling we can cite.
Which parent of Hitomebore was the seed parent D007
- Seed parent Koshihikari, pollen parent Hatsuboshi Sources: イネ品種データベース検索システム 交配系譜図「東北143号（ひとめぼれ）」
- Seed parent Hatsuboshi, pollen parent Koshihikari Sources: 水稲新品種「ひとめぼれ」について（宮城県古川農業試験場研究報告）
The NARO pedigree field reads Koshihikari/Hatsuboshi, and by convention the name before the slash is the seed parent. The breeding report from Furukawa Agricultural Experiment Station, which raised the variety, states the reverse. The same disagreement appears for Koshihikari's own parents (D001), so this kind of discrepancy is not unusual. The diagram follows the NARO notation and both readings are recorded here.
Whether Koshihikari was used in the cross for Tomohonami (Chubu No.125) — resolved 8 October 2026 D008
- The cross is recorded as Koshihikari//Inakei IL946/Koshihikari Sources: イネ品種データベース検索システム「越南17号を親とする品種一覧」（全607行）
- The breeding record names Mineasahi as mother and the upland variety Sensho as father for the 1997 cross, and then states that Koshihikari was crossed twice onto Inakei IL946 in 2001-2002 Sources: イネ品種データベース検索システム 来歴文書「中部125号」
There was no disagreement. Reading the whole breeding record on 8 October 2026 showed that the Koshihikari cross is described in a later paragraph. Saying here that the record never mentions Koshihikari was our own error, from reading only its first sentence. Neither source is wrong. The reason for withholding an individual page is gone; the page will be made once Inakei IL946 and the upland variety Sensho are added to the diagram.