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
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: Pollen Parent

Andrew wrote in part:
>From my investigation, the pollen parent appears to contribute
that is NOT related to
coloration but IS related to morphology (when I am believing Jim Hawes
position on the matter).
However, when I am believing Ben Zonneveld, then I draw the conclusion
that SOME coloration
CAN come from the pollen parent, otherwise how could you explain the 50%

yield on the GG, YY
cross?  Let me say that, and ask that question again.... IF the pollen
parent contributes NO
Cholorplast DNA, but only contributes nuclear DNA, then what explains
the prodgeny inheriting
coloration traits of the pollen parent?   Ben may wish to comment in
order for us to better
understand his mitotic recombinatoin hypothesis.  Haven't seen him hear
for a while.


I have not commented on the influence of pollen parent on phenotype of
progeny and I therefore have no position to defend as you seem to infer.

You quoted some conclusions about a 50 % yield on the GG,YY cross and
asked for an explanation. This is a very confusing question  since you
are mixing symbols for two apparently different genetic characters. If
you are using genetic symbols used in the breeding work of Vaughn
mentioned in Bulletin 13, page 48 , it is even more confusing since YY
would be lethal, and not have any pollen since it is dead.And if you are

suggesting that GG is green, this also is incorrect. The symbol for
green is yy. May I suggest that you restate your question? If you are
asking someone to explain why 50 % of the seedlings of pollen from a
yellow plant on a green hosta gives 50 percent yellow, I suggest you ask

the person who reported these results.

The data reported by Vaughn was quite contrary to this data. Vaughn
states in "Variegation in Hostas", Bulletin 11, page 33, third
paragraph, last sentence...."However, pollen from a variegated or yellow

clone  on a green plant give all green progeny". Vaughn's obvious
conclusion is that yellow pollen does not influence color of progeny of
a green plant. Ask the person with the different data to explain this
contradiction, not me. I am merely reporting what Vaughn reported some
20 years ago. I prefer to believe what Vaughn has written. I have not
tested Vaughn's work to see if he is correct but evidently someone HAS
tested Vaughn's work and has arrived at differnt conclusions. Or perhaps

there are some obvious experimental errors not yet accounted for. I can
think of some but that is not a role I wish to
 comment upon at this time.

Jim Hawes

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

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