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
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
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

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: HYB: kashmiriana, ploidy and more

  • Subject: Re: [iris-talk] HYB: kashmiriana, ploidy and more
  • From: arilbredbreeder@cs.com
  • Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:36:34 EST

In a message dated 1/3/02 7:28:25 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
jcwalters@bridgernet.com writes:


> My understanding of this "rule" is that it applies to the number of
> seedlings that must be raised from a particular cross (or type of cross) to
> obtain the desired result in a single plant, not to the number of such
> crosses that must be made.

I have run across many "rules" regarding the number of seedlings that are 
likely to be required to attain a specific goal through planned crosses, but 
those vary from program to program.  TBs or ABs, dominant or recessive 
traits, etc.  This one is quite different, because it refers to the frequency 
of a natural occurrence and all the hybridizer can do is maximize the chances 
of taking advantage of it when it does happen.

I'd love to know the origin of the 1-in-10,000 figure.  Was it based on some 
type of objective analysis or pulled out of thin air as a way of saying that 
unreduced gametes are quite rare?  When I started studying the 
diploid-to-tetraploid conversion and exploring the triploid route myself back 
in the '70s, I got it from a number of sources.  
Of course, it was expressed in slightly different ways so I'm not sure 
whether the variants might have come from the same original source.   

Sharon McAllister


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/2gGylB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 






 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index