Re: HYB: 1/4 x TB Crosses
From: "Colleen Modra" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I'm enjoying this discussion as I do a lot of hybridising (mostly TB at the
moment) but am very interested in arils and AB. I need to know as much as
poss, stay on line.
Colleen Modra Oz
From: Sharon McAllister <email@example.com>
To: INTERNET:firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Date: Monday, 15 November 1999 3:54
Subject: [iris-talk] HYB: 1/4 x TB Crosses
>From: Sharon McAllister <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Message text written by Donald Eaves:
>>> but there have also
>>>been examples counted as having three TB sets of chromosomes and one set
>> It's this last that intrigues me. Why wouldn't this begin to stack aril
>a TB-like plant? And why wouldn't you begin to line breed here?
>Unfortunately, I can cite several reasons:
>1. It's extremely rare, detectable only through chromosome analysis
>[which is a tad more demanding than chromosome counting].
>2. The mixed set of chromosomes is less likely to be passed on than
>normal sets, and detecting its presence in the next generation is just as
>difficult as finding it in the first place.
>3. The gene pool is much too small for line-breeding to be practical.
>> If you
>accumulate more aril genes while maintaining TB hardiness, it seems that
>line breeding would be the means of doing so. If I were doing it, it would
>the plant I was after, not necessarily how it could be registered. I
>that the genetic knowledge would be important, but I haven't grasped the
>whole picture somehow. It seems to me that the proper selection of crosses
>which added more aril genes, even if only bit by bit, would move them
>being more accessible as garden subjects. Those that picked up the less
>hardy or more difficult aril aspects could be discarded or used just as the
>ones currently are being used. Fill me in on what I'm not seeing here.
>There's nothing wrong with your proposed scenario, except that it is
>subject to the limitations I outlined above and there are easier ways of
>accomplishing this objective. The simplest is just selecting seedlings
>for growth habits as much as flower characteristics.
>For example, many years ago some of Gene Hunt's introductions were
>criticized for having "lost" their signals. But signals are an onco trait,
>at that time still closely linked with onco growth habits. Gene broke the
>link by developing lines with TB cytoplasm and plant characteristics [for
>example, WISHED FOR CHILD & KOKO KNOLL] or regelia cytoplasm and plant
>characteristics [for example: ESTHER, THE QUEEN]. With outcrosses, he then
>reintroduced signals to these lines, while maintaining gardenability.
>Following up on his work, I found that plant characteristics tend to be
>most like those of the pod parent. For example, EQ gave me far more
>selected seedlings when used as a pod parent than a pollen parent, even
>though I was able to make many more crosses using its pollen. That's why
>I've come to recommend choosing the pod parent for its expressed plant
>characteristics and genetic potential in flower characteristics. I
>certainly don't claim a monopoly on this. If you study some of Howard
>Shockey's last 3/4-bred introductions, which are exceptionally gardenable
>for the class, you'll see that he also capitalized on this principle.
>My long-term experiments have also included attempts to accumulate as many
>TB genes as possible in a plant with aril cytoplasm, and vice versa --
>mostly to learn about the genetics. [You might want to explore the Sibling
>Sheets on my web site to see more about this.] But there have been enough
>payoffs that I can recommend this approach to others.....
>For a specific example, let's look at DRESS PINKS. From (LOVELY BLANCHE x
>EUNICE) X SUNRISE IN GLORY, you might expect it to be a halfbred. Nope.
>Its pod parent was a Hunt seedling, which appears to be triploid [its pod
>parent was a tetraploid TB and pollen parent was a diploid RC, so that's
>not surprising]. The Hunt seedling wasn't introduced because its only aril
>characteristics are limited branching, low bud count and superior substance
>-- but it is a clear coral pink [the color that just "doesn't appear" in
>arilbreds] and has given me some spectacular seedlings.
>Coming from a triploid x amphidiploid cross, DRESS PINKS could be either of
>the parental types. Extensive testing, however, convinced me that it is a
>triploid of limited fertility. That means it gave me a significant number
>of seedlings, but not nearly as many as I'd expect from a halfbred. The
>plants are quite TB-like, although it performs better for me than any TB.
>When I saw it in Lu Danielson's more hospitable-to-TBs garden, it was
>threatening to take over the place.
>So what does this mean for future generations? Even with its limited
>fertility, it's an excellent pod parent for use with half-breds. That type
>of cross takes advantage of its ability to pass on its growth habits, with
>a 50/50 chance of fertility in the first generation. Careful selection of
>its mate can also capitalize on its recessive color & pattern. [Yes, it
>even has a small signal patch.]
>That's not to say that DRESS PINKS is the ONLY one of its type worth using
>in such a program -- this is just one example. IMO, any quarterbred with
>good growth habits and receptive-to-aril flower characteristics is worth
>trying as a pod parent with halfbred pollen.
>> In a way, didn't Mr. Seligmann achieve exactly what aril breeders were
>looking for with SATAN'S MISTRESS? It's got intense color saturation,
>strong substance, superior texture on a gardenable plant much like a
>TB. It just didn't have the onco appearance. But it doesn't quite look
>just like the TBs either, tho it's difficult to pinpoint exactly why. It
>somehow to do with the above, but I can't quite explain what it is. Still
>it is a remarkable iris and is selected as THE standout even by visitors
>here when it is in bloom. Without any prompting. Something is visible
>even to the untrained eye or that wouldn't happen.
>Yes, in that sense SATAN'S MISTRESS was a success. But he registered it as
>a TB because it didn't have the aril traits most people had come to expect.
> The Coronel was a self-professed "pollen dauber". He enjoyed raising a
>variety of seedlings and showing them off to garden visitors. His
>arthritis had progressed to the point that he was reconciled to giving up
>hybridizing about the time I got serious about it so we started working
>together. Sometimes, it seemed like he put up with my study of pedigrees &
>planning of crosses only because I'd make whatever crosses he wanted before
>spreading my own selections on the remaining fresh flowers in his garden --
>but we certainly had fun. Another MVIS member also stopped by frequently
>to make crosses for him, and I still believe their prime consideration was
>coming up with outlandish crosses that would get the biggest "rise" out of
>> Soooo, that
>means more planning. It's likely that at age 52 this just ends being an
>exercise for fun, but I can make it serious fun.
>IMO, you still qualify as a youngster! One of the last letters I got from
>Gene Hunt outlined a program he found interesting, "but it would take 40
>years". At the time, he was in his mid-70s -- but he closed that letter
>with "I may try it anyway"! Unfortunately, he never got the chance as his
>life was soon ended by an unfortunate encounter with a drunk driver. But
>he had taken the time to think it through and tell me about it, so I was at
>least able to follow through on the portions for which I could find the
>requisite breeding stock.
>> May I begin with the above? If not, what's the best approach
>for the first generation end-of-line scenario?
>I've tried to answer the above questions, but the approach I'd recommend
>for a first-generation, end-of-line scenario is relatively simple: Follow
>the advice I've given before regarding the production of quarterbreds with
>aril characteristics. The TB x halfbred cross and its reciprocal produce
>quarterbreds in sufficient quantity for evaluation and selection. The TB x
>quarterbred cross and its reciprocal produce fewer seedlings and only half
>of them can be expected to be quarterbreds. The odds are worse, but the
>underlying principles are the same. The added challenge is simply that of
>determining WHICH of the offspring are actually TBs and which are
>1. Early-season rebloomers not only have desirable growth habits but
>also provide an opportunity for a reciprocal cross. In conventional crosses
>for quarterbreds, I've found the highest ratio of good seedlings in crosses
>with an arilbred pod parent but have introduced more with a TB pod parent
>simply because I've had so many more to choose from. If you want to learn
>as much as possible from these experiments, reciprocal crosses will be of
>2. Plicatas, bicolors, and bicolor-plicatas -- expecially those with
>pink ground -- are most likely to let aril traits show through. The plicata
>pattern is recessive. Pink is recessive. Bicolors are a combination of
>dominant and recessive genes. These patterns are more likely to let aril
>characteristics be expressed in their offspring than are selfs -- even
>light-colored ones that owe their appearance to the presence of a dominant
>I've answer on-list because others saw your questions and may be interested
>in the answers. I'll certainly continue the discussion off-list, if you
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
~ FREE Games & CA$H Prizes! ~ $55,000+ Awarded Monthly ~
Welcome to Gamesville.com-- Home of the World's Biggest & Best Free Games
Play Three-Eyed Bingo, Quick-Draw Poker, Pop Quiz & Picturama FREE!
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/gamesville5 ">Click Here</a>