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: Re: HYB: parents


I find your comments on the cross made both ways really interesting.

In plant reproduction, at least at the level of irises,  the nucleus is
divided on a level par into the descendants.  All the rest of the
structures--the cell wall, the endoplasmic reticulum, the various plastids,
organelles of various sorts including things like mitochondria, all of that
extra-nuclear material, comes ONLY from the mother's side.  Actually, that is
true in animals as well, I believe.

Most of the characteristics of an iris are governed by the genetics in the
nucleus.  The other pieces and parts which contribute the processing
factories, the synthesis stations, the structure and so on are from the
mother.  I would not be surprised if some of the characteristics such as
multiple buds in sockets, branching and vigor, height and so on had some
strong input from those extra-nuclear structures, thus leaning toward the
mother's side of the cross.

I know that in arilbred crosses, at least in what little experience I once
had, it did make a difference which was the pod parent.  From something I
think Sharon McAllister wrote somewhere along the line, the best of the
present AB's trace back to parents that had the regelia ancestor on the pod
side, rather than the oncocyclus.  Somehow, in strongly onco hybrids, if the
pod parent is the Eupogon, the results are not the same at all as if the onco
is the mama.  I believe I recall C. G. White commenting on this in the
Bulletin.  The diploid hybrids of C. G. White that look most onco-like were
all onco x diploid bearded.  That's true also of the hybrid WILLIAM MOHR.

On the other hand, CAPITOLA produces only pollen (in my experience--I tried,
and never got a pod), but the seedlings look just as arilate as the offspring
of WILLIAM MOHR.  Odd, and contridictory to what is above.

Where I'm "line breeding" (although the crosses are outcrosses on the short
pedigrees, the long versions show the same remote ancestors) I can't see any
significant difference between the reciprocal crosses.  In that context I'd
agree with what Ben Hager told you.

I always make reciprocals if I can, just in case......There are times when
distributions such as you describe go way outside of probably chance
segregations.  Making a cross both directions when possible is an added bit of
insurance, even for the most experienced.  IM[not-so-humble]O.  (I'm more full
of opinions on most subjects than most people have subjects about which to
have opinions......)

Neil Mogensen  western NC mountains

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