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


  • To: Multiple recipients of list <iris-l@rt66.com>
  • Subject: Re:SPEC-setosa/hookeri
  • From: Daryl &Kathy Haggstrom <hagg@alaska.net>
  • 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.
Kathy Haggstrom
Anch, AK
Zone 3

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index