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: Genetic drift

  • To: Multiple recipients of list <iris-l@rt66.com>
  • Subject: Re: Genetic drift
  • From: Linda Mann <lmann@icx.net>
  • Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 05:11:41 -0600 (MDT)

Bill Shear wrote:
> For reasons not clearly
> understood (at least not by me), each passage through culture increases the
> number of plants that are not true to type, but this takes many more
> generations than would ever be done by a commercial propagator.

Thanks for the clarification, Bill.  The more I thought about it, seems
that changes in flowers (sports) from one clonal generation to the next
of irises would be more likely to happen than changes in basic growth
responses to nutrients or climate, which is what I was thinking about at
the time.  Totally making this up, but it seems like it would be in the
plant's best interest to have changes in flower color be fairly easy to
come by, but not growth responses.

Linda Mann east Tennessee USA






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