Yeah, this article really feels so damn one sided, like the only thing that matters are the genes. Some of it is the genetics, but some of it is environmental. The same plant can produce different tasting beans if there are significant environmental changes year over year. Hell, if I take a plant from Colombia, transplant it to Ethiopia, it will produce different tasting beans from its identical fellow identical plants in Colombia. That it would not taste the same as the plants already present in Ethiopia is where the genetic differences come in.
It honestly feels like it's trying to make me excited for some really esoteric things. Don't get me wrong, this research should absolutely continue, but it isn't something the lay person is going to ooh and aah over. Even moreso for me because I do homesteading, I've done craploads of research on plants. I've grown different breeds/strains of the same plant to get different sized, shaped, colored, and flavored vegetables and fruit.
I'm also less impressed because this sort of research is what usually precedes GMO shenanigans. Given the money in coffee growing, etc, it was a no brainer that this research is going to be used to do some Monsanto level bullshit. I have nothing against GMO, but what has happened so far with it has not been good.
How is ______ so different that other ______ from the same species? It's almost like the article was based on a template.
I am sure people are curious about why differences exist and that is good. They really needed to call out that these concepts aren't strictly about coffee.
However, from what I was able to read, is that it's difficult for different coffees in the same species to interbreed. This is different than mushrooms as it's fairly easy to cross different strains.