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: Variegation and viruses

  • Subject: Re: Variegation and viruses
  • From: Steve Marak <samarak@arachne.uark.edu>
  • Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:39:04 -0600 (CST)

Plant viruses seem to be the subject of as much interest and concern, and
in some cases paranoia and misinformation as computer viruses. They come
up regularly on two other lists I'm on, and occasionally elsewhere.

Obviously, they do exist and do damage, in some cases (TMV) serious
economic damage. Every serious orchid grower I know takes a variety of
precautions. (If only they took the same degree of precaution against
computer viruses!)

John, I am not an expert but I do recall a study of variegated plants
which showed that the vast majority are not the result of any disease but
are rather "chimeras", multiple cell lines growing and dividing in the
plant, one of which is colored differently than the other. There is an
excellent discussion of variegation out on the net, if memory serves on
the TAMU web site (Texas A&M University, where there is a lot of good
botanical and horticultural information.)

There was also some discussion of the old Rembrandt type tulips, which did
have a virus (some unimaginative name like "tulip color-break virus", I
think), and the newer, non-virused tulips which are now being sold. The
breeders have gone to great lengths to produce tulips which look similar
to the old virused ones, and also to ensure that none of their stocks are
virused. (There are a few die-hards who feel the new varieties just don't
have the same subtlety of color, and still grow the old virused ones. No
reputable grower will sell one, of course, so they have to keep them alive

As far as I know, you're correct in that there is no cure for a virused
plant. Practically everyone recommends destroying it.

But - harking back to the paranoia I mentioned earlier - do be sure a
plant really is virused before you sentence it to death. As with computer
viruses, there seems often to be a rush to judgement.

On another list a while back, a grower and breeder decided to give away
his collection. It was a valuable one, representing years of work.
However, somehow someone heard a rumor that "his collection is virused".
The rumor surfaced on that list. Suddenly, with no real evidence, people
were rushing to destroy not just the plants they'd gotten from the grower,
but even ones which had been near them, despite the counsel of cooler
heads. Someone took samples and had them tested (one of the difficulties
with plant viruses is that knowing for sure requires testing). Result: no
sign of virus in any of the samples.


On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, john s. smolowe wrote:

> Do the various common variegated Philodendrons and Monstera harbor viruses? Ie
> are they safe in my collection?
> John Smolowe

-- Steve Marak
-- samarak@arachne.uark.edu

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index