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: apomictic?


Jason et al,

>If the "normal" seedling is less vigorous than the apomictic ones--and
would
>therefore be at a competitive disadvantage to them--why does the plant
produce
>it?  Pollination/fertilization costs the plant energy, so why do it just to
>produce a disadvantaged seedling?


Unless I have missed something large indeed (not unlikely), this question is
akin to asking "Why do plants reproduce sexually when they can produce more
vigorous offspring by reproducing vegetatively (asexually)?", being as the
fertilised seedling is a product of sexual reproduction, while the
unfertilised or apomictic seedling is a product of asexual reproduction.

 The answer to this question is to do with the Evolution of Species via
Natural Selection. How can a plant improve or change, if it produces
offspring identical to the parents?

Sorry if I am confusing the issue by taking it off at a tangent.
Kindest regards,

Toby
--
Toby Marsden, Herefordshire, UK.






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