hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Re: Pollen Parent

Hello, Mr. Jim Hawes:
You know I respect you more than just about any other Hosta investigator on
the planet.  Please remember that some portion of what I write is intended
to seek clarification and/or invite debate because I either don't know the
answer or I am trying to pile the B.S. real high until I can find the real
answers.  :-)   I may better understand the various positions that people
have developed on these matters if I state something in an outlandish
manner, perpaps provoking a defensive or attacking manuever in hopes that
they can set me straight.  This only occurs with the courtesy of a response
and I thank you for yours.

RE:>>I have not commented on the influence of pollen parent on phenotype of
progeny and I therefore have no position to defend as you seem to infer.
I'm confused, Jim.   I thought you were of the opinion that mitotic
recombination in the nuclear DNA was NOT a good reason for Hosta Sports.
And I had come to the conclusion that you were in agreement with K. Vaughn
and others that these coloration changes would be in the plastids and thus
must be of maternal origin.  The inference I've drawn is that the only
thing that the pollen parent brings to the gene swapping party are
morphological attributes.  I'm using logical analysis to form a conclusion
from statements which you may not have stated directly, yet the implication
seemed to allow me to indirectly deduce this conclusion.  Have I done this
in error?  Perhaps I make too strong of a leap in logic as I attempt to
drawn conclusions from some of your summaries?

RE:>>And if you are suggesting that GG is green, this also is incorrect.
The symbol for green is yy.
As for the nomenclature of genetics, I am not ready to speak with any
authority on this subject so I am intentionally doing it wrong (or at least
not bothering at this point to try and get it right).   If Ben and Joe
can't agree, seasoned veterans that they are, then there is little hope for
me.  Once they can agree, I will either adopt their nomenclature or maybe
have stumbled onto something else with which I feel more comfortable.  At
this point, however, I'm simply trying to make conversation and hopefully
not leading anyone too far astray.

With that said, I'm not inclined to use yy for green, even if it IS
correct.   It just seems logical that there has GOT to be a better way to
represent the pairing of the alleles that form a green Hosta.  Until I get
my hands on my daughter's genetics book (which should be at the end of
May), or find other research that clarifies this for me, I am simply
saying, "we have a green plant and we have a yellow one--let's force them
to have sex and see what happens"!!!  And, if we get the 50% yellow progeny
which Ben asserts occurred,  then there is trouble in river city if we
exclude the pollen parent as a contributor to the coloration gene pool.

Incidentally, since one can't tell just what the recessive genes are, how
could one know how to write them?  It seems to me that anything short of a
gene mapping is speculation.   All this nomenclature business is simply a
shortcut for talking about what we CAN see, until such time as we can truly
understand that which we DON'T see.  This will come only from mapping the
actual geneome, or those of plants relatively close to Hosta.  This whole
Mendelian genetics effort if primarily to make an attempt to hybridize for
specific traits and to map the results, and to do so, we have to have
symbols.  If I only know what I see in the plant, how do I know how to
represent the recessive allele?  This really IS a question and I'll have to
get back with you once I understand this better.  Please spare me the pain
of stumbling and simply point me to some web-based resources that can speak
to this matter.

If Drosophila Melanogaster has three genes involved with red eye color, why
couldn't Hosta have three, or more?  I don't remember anyone commenting on
this.  We DO know that there is direct correlation of one gene/one amino
acid (not one gene/one enzyme) but I'm a ways off from understanding what I
really need to know in order to offer anything of value to the conversation
about Hosta sports or genetic nomenclature.  Shoot, at the rate I'm going
backwards, I'll soon not even know what in tarnation a Hosta IS, let alone
what makes it sport.  <vbg>

In the meantime, thank you for the reply.  I'll read your message again and
see what parts I can hope will stick, and which parts still bafflie my
limited cranium, requiring deeper study.

RE:>> Bulletin 13, page 48
Want to share a copy, Jim or anyone?  I assume this could be a rather dusty
AHS bulletin to which you are referring.  Of course, your copy wouldn't be
dusty, would it.... :-)  Maybe yours could serve as a master if such is

Hosta la Vista!
Andrew Lietzow
#1 Plantsman at http://hostahaven.com
1250 41st St
Des Moines, IA 50311-2516

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index