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: Discussion on Origin of Sports


I agree with your arguments against mitotic recombination as a causal
factor for sports. In all of my reading on this subject matter written
by recognized  authorites, this causal factor  has never been mentioned
once.. Ben has never presented any data or description of research on
this matter.  Nor has any review of literature been made. Where is the
proof that mitotic recombination is responsible for sports?. What is the
basis for repeated claims? .Are these ideas based on  reading?
research? inspirational thinking? processes  of logic? An explanation or
description of the physical process of crossing over of chromasomes or
their breaking apart and rejoining,  which may occur in mitosis, however
rarely,  is not proof that it occurs in hostas or that it "causes"  or
"explains" sports.

Ben claims on pg 56 of AHJ Vol 30, No 1 that he has "done several
crosses just to find out" how sports originate. Really? I wonder if he
will  explain this simple proceedure to solve such a complex problem as
the origin of sports. He has presented no data. He has not described any
methods used. No results of experimentation have been given. He has not
even discussed a review of the literature. I doubt that he has ever read
the comprehensive literature which exists.  Without a discussion by  the
person who proposes a theory, without proof of any kind, then the
theories vanish into thin air as pure speculation. The problem seems to
be that these theories are repeated over and over in articles which are
allowed to be published without peer review, without proof, without
convincing evidence but  all based on the word and  assumed authority of
someone who CLAIMS that he is an authority because of his higher degree.
Unless there is   proof, it is all pure speculation, perhaps even
fantasies without a basis of facts.

I , for one,  reject this suggestion, hypothesis, theory, idea, belief,
hunch, call it as you may,   explanation for origin of sports. When
there is convincing proof, then I will reconsider if the evidence is
valid..  Meanwhile there are three articles which have been published
which support Ben's views. I ask why are they there? Answers, anyone?

My next post will contain  several comments on chimeral rearrangements
as a causal factor for the origin of sports.

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