- To: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re:SPEC-setosa/hookeri
- From: Daryl &Kathy Haggstrom <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 14:13:37 -0700 (MST)
Ian and Bill,
Have been following the setosa/hookeri conversation with great interest,
but hesitate to jump in because I realize I'm out of my league. Also,
the last few days I've been writing very quick responses on the fly to a
big airplane project I'm involved in & consequently my comments have
been poorly thought out & worded.
After reading responses, I think my view of setosa/hookeri is a little
simplistic, as Ian said. I've just never read anything in books/articles
yet that has approached the thoroughness with which you are dealing with
it. I like "listening" to the conversation. I have no input at the
moment, only a question from either or both of you.
For years, as I've said, I've been looking for hookeri types here in
Alaska. Is that a wasted effort? Even if I found one I'm not sure what
it would prove, according to what you've written. Is there any value to
looking for a "precursor" or parent type plant, especially considering
we don't know what that plant would be. I assumed a parent plant would
actually have less complex genetics than its expanded & differing
offspring. Is that incorrect? If it IS correct, there is probably no
value for breeding purposes in introducing a more "primitive" specimen
into a breeding line, as we seek variations, more than simplicity of
gene pool. It would be of more interest biologically speaking, correct?
One other question that I would welcome you both to hazard a guess at -
where does the occasional wild setosa I find with rudimentary standards
fit in? I don't know what to do with them.