Re: SCARLET BUTTERFLY
- Subject: [iris-photos] Re: SCARLET BUTTERFLY
- From: "nmogens" firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:42:21 -0000
--- In email@example.com, "donald" <donald@e...> wrote:
"Karotype analysis is not the same as chromosome counting, is it?
Isn't it more akin to DNA testing in that it identifies a chromosome
as being a marker for a specific species? Not as specific as DNA
testing, but still enough to identify the probably ancestral source
(s) of the chromosomes. --Donald Eaves"
During some post-graduate continuing education I did a "one-hour"
Readings and Conference stint in cytogenetics. The prof. had me
learn how to make and stain slides where chromosomes could be
counted. I did serial sections of root tips of one of my own
varieties, SWEET HOOGIE, as it was recorded in my stud book as being
from Blue Shimmer X (Sun Lakes x I. hoogiana). It was expected to
have the eleven chromosomes of the regelia and three sets of twelve
from the TB ancestors.
I found making the slides extraorinarily laborious. It is not done
quickly! I spent nearly an entire day just going through the
procedure, clumsily, I admit, as this was my first and only time to
engage in such a project. Additionally I had spent quite a few hours
prior to the exercise reading to learn the process. Only then, the
slides prepared and dry, was I able to begin to try to count and
identify marker chromosomes.
Thanks to the karyotypes (diagrams of the shapes of the chromosomes
in a set) published in *Garden Irises*, the predecessor of *The World
of Irises*, I was able to find and identify the long metacentric
chromosomes (ones where the waist-band is in the middle)
characteristic both of regelia and tall bearded clones. I found the
two chromosomes remarkable different, the regelia one being
significantly longer than the TB, if I am remembering correctly. I
did this a mere forty years ago, so the memory is "fresh," if I may
be a bit tongue in cheek.
Some of the other significant chromosomes were those that
were "acrocentric" with satellites (waist band near one end, and
having a tag-along even further out, just barely attached)--again my
memory may not be perfectly accurate. Identifying the morphology
(form) of the significant chromosomes was far easier than counting
The net effect of the experience was (1) the parentage was probable,
and (2) I had enormous respect for those people who do this sort of
work on a serious basis. I found out why chromosome counts vary--
chromosomes are very hard to focus on and see. It would be very easy
to miss one that could have been seen, or a small chromosome may be
partially or fully obscurred by one of the larger ones and not be
visible enough to note. To try to photograph the sets would be even
more difficult--the optical field on the slide is significantly
greater than the depth of field offered by the microscope. It would
be like trying to read a dictionary with a magnifying glass, then
turn and try to see the TV through the same magnifying glass at the
same distance from ones face. All is lost in a blur.
I just sat with a sketch pad and worked the focus up and down with
the fine-tuning adjustment and tried to draw what I thought I saw.
The results may have been grounded more in my expectations and
imagination than in what came through the microscope into my eye.
To say the least, an iris that is supposedly (aril x TB) X TB *can*
be identified as either "is" or "is not" with this procedure, both by
the number of chromosomes and by the shapes (morphology) of the
chromosomes (the karyotype). In any event, what an experienced
person sees when looking at the plant tells one just about as much at
vastly lower cost and with a great deal less time.
Neil Mogensen z 7 western NC
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/