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


>Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 04:07:30 -0400
>From: Jim Hawes <hawesj@gcnet.net>
>This post is in response to yours recently to Barbara in Quebec
>regarding sterility in Hostas. I am discussing also in this post a
>response to a post of Steve Chamberlain in which he attempted to defend
>"his" article. He objected to the fact that I  said that BZ's (and his)
>article was bad science. He requested that I stop making ad hominem
>remarks (i.e. to the man, reflecting arguments directed to  one's
>prejudices, rather than to one's intellect). If he will read this post
>carefully, perhaps he will understand that my characterization  of the
>article as being bad science is based on the fact that many influencing
>factors determining the presence of pods were not considered or
>discussed in the article...thus this represented substantial
>experimental error. I am very aware that the data collected, compiled
>and analyzed in a simple manner was not data from an experiment. It was
>merely observations of the number of pods present on some hostas , in
>some gardens, in some locations, in varying environmental and cultural
>situations and variables in one summer season. This count of pods, made
>by participants of varying levels of  proficiency, education, training
>or understanding, represents another experimental error not considered.
>The count of number of pods present has nothing to do with sterility,
>fecundity, seed viability or any other criteria being investigated. No
>factors influencing presence of pollen, pollen viability,  gamete
>compatibility, pollen tube growth, presence of insects by number, type
>and within a given  timeframe, temperatures at time of flowering,
>rainfall, timing of rainfall, numbers of flowers per scape or many other
>variable factors were considered or could be known. It is for this
>reason that I characterized the article as bad science.The excercise was
>full of proceedural  errors. My comments were not directed at any one
>person but to the article itself. It was indeed a simple article. It was
>also useless and took up a lot of space in the Journal. My criticism was
>directed mostly at the  design of the investigation made. I continue to
>characterize the investigation  as useless. Its purpose ( as explained
>by Steve Chamberlain) seems to have been to determine  the usefulness of
>a pod parent in hybridization. The seven pages of superfulous data
>collected did not determine usefullness. Usefulness should be determined
>by each individual hybridizer, using his own techniques, skills,
>knowledge,  experiences and resources.
>I am not convinced that this article was reviewed adequately. I consider
>it a waste of effort, time and money associated with publishing it. This
>last criteria alone allows me, as a plant scientist and member of the
>AHS, to take  the liberty of making an informed critique on the quality
>and usefullness of the article. I am not the only person who has
>criticized the wastefulness of this article in the Journal. It has even
>been the subject of derision and ridicule among many hosta acquaintances
>who are knowledgable of hybridizing problems.
>I hope, Bill,  that the discussion of the factors determining presence
>and numbers  of pods
>on hosta flower scapes, answers some of the questions you raised in
>sterility. This discussion was not intended to be a technical discussion
>on the subject of sterility...rather on some factors affecting
>fecundity...the opposite of sterility. And the presence and/or  number
>of pods is not the only criteria determining fecundity.
>Bill, you were a participant in this pod counting  exercise . I am not
>critizing anyone who participated. They have the freedom to do as they
>wish. I am simply stating that it was a waste of time. No valid
>conclusions resulted. And if someone thinks valid conclusions were
>obtained, I wish that someone would prove it to me.
>Jim Hawes

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