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: Anthocyanin-sidetracked

The reason you aren't following is because I haven't concluded or proposed anything at all.  Just reporting an observation for perusal and furthering our informaton.  For such a little Iris it sure is causing a lot of trouble.  Being tall myself I find sometimes the smaller ones of us actually do cause more commotion <wink>.

I'm simply stating that suaveolens also apparently contributes (hidden) plicata genes that can dominate over the glaciata genes.  This would potentially muddle your findings and data some if you didn't know it was there.  Much in the same way the amoena gene would (and did for you) if one didn't know it was there.

Previously stated by Chuck in this forum... and I quote for reference...

"The glaciata , which is four sets of  the plicata glaciata gene , also 
has no anthocyanin. The removal of anthocyanin this way  produces an 
exceptional clean flower.  But an exceptionally clean flower is not 
necessarily a glaciata.

A glaciata  flower crossed with a wwww  will produce all offspring with 
anthocyanin. For example a white glaciata X  recessive white, produces 
all blue offspring.

The glaciata is a recessive of a recessive (plicata) and has absolutely 
no effect on pigment unless  paired up as one of four plicata genes. 
And only shows glaciata  when in a set of four glaciata genes. So is of 
no interest unless you are working plicatas. Of course working a line 
of glaciatas to produce  exceptionally clean non anthocyanin flowers is 
a possibility, except that glaciata plants are weak, have poor 
branching and  usually not great flowers. But these are not all minor 
problems. There are now stronger and better formed SDB and IB  
glaciatas and eventually perhaps also with TB, but not so far. All TB 
glaciatas I have grown here have quickly disappeared.

The proper test to see if a plant is a glaciata is to cross with a 
plicata. All seedlings will be plicata if it is a glaciata. Of course 
some of thes plicata could be glaciatas.

It actually it is even more complicated, but no further information for 
this post, I sure it is confusing enough as is.

Chuck Chapman"


Hence his appropriate last statement in the quote.  It held true.

Paul Archer

-----Original Message-----
>From: christian foster <flatnflashy@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Aug 7, 2008 3:48 PM
>To: iris@hort.net
>Subject: Re: [iris] Re: Re: Anthocyanin-sidetracked
>Ok... I'm looking at your posts again... you're saying that there is a
>"blue" expression that is coming from suaveolens, which is connected to
>ameona, not to plicata.  If I'm following... is your primary point that not
>all pale blues are because of I?
>How would you rule out the presence of
>suaveolens influence?
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Paul
>Archer <pharcher@mindspring.com>
>To: iris@hort.net
>Sent: Thursday, August 7,
>2008 12:07:04 AM
>Subject: Re: [iris] Re: Re: Anthocyanin-sidetracked
>I was
>mentioning that point as the plicata influence from I. suaveolens might
>confuse what is being seen in the crosses especially if you didn't know it was
>there.  No one else had mentioned or replied with observations of plicatas
>from suaveolens when I last posted long ago.  It seems it might be of
>importance now.
>Paul Archer
>-----Original Message-----
>christian foster <flatnflashy@yahoo.com>
>>Sent: Aug 5, 2008 3:44 PM
>>Subject: Re: [iris] Re: Re: Anthocyanin-sidetracked
>>I saw that, and remember it... but I have filed amoena, and plicata thoughts
>under "not the tail I think I'm chasing."
>>----- Original Message ----
>>From: Paul Archer <pharcher@mindspring.com>
>>To: iris@hort.net
>Tuesday, August 5, 2008 2:14:28 PM
>>Subject: Re: [iris] Re: Re:
>>I'm sure this doesn't help either but I had
>mentioned a while back of getting plicatas from I. suaveolens when crossed
>with Swertii.
>>Paul Archer
>>Currently moved to Indianapolis, IN Zone 5
>Raleigh, NC Zone 8)
>>>And to further muddle things up for you, I've got what
>should be glaciata seedlings in a second generation from KUPARI (a glaciata
>white Iris pallida) crossed with Iris suaveolens. I say "should be" because
>suaveolens has contributed some pale anthocyanin pigmentation that is showing
>up only in the falls. When I had first discussed this with Neil, years ago,
>when we were only seeing the first generation, we talked of it as a "dominant
>amoena" gene - like I(s), but now that I've been working with it for a little
>longer. I'm starting to think of it differently. I'll see if I can find a
>picture and repost it to Iris-Photos. So you can see what I mean.
>sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
>>message text
>sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
>>message text
>sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
>message text
>To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
>message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement