Re: [hostapix] H. 'Rascal', ploidy, and personal list of fertile/non-fertile plants

Hey Bill, 

Thanks for the info on use of RASCAL as a POD parent.  I'm using RASCAL both ways this season, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.  There are no listed POLLEN parent entries in Pat Mora's database but it seems logical that if the plant sets seed, it's pollen should be fertile.   Don't know if this logic is accurate but I don't know why this would NOT be the case.    

Of course, it would be really nice to have a database that includes ploidy levels, and I'm working on that in my voluminous spare time:-).  Until then, I am looking for the best sources for fertility info.  Of course, the online resource that Pat More has so kindly provided is awesome.  If there is a genetically controlled hybrid listed for a plant (in Pat's database), either as a POD or POLLEN parent, this can save a lot of time because one learns that another has had success with the plant.  It's the ones that have no entry listed that need classification.   

One of the signs that makes me suspect that a plant is Triploid, and therefore theoreticaly sterile, is a plant that has great vigor, looks great all season long, sends up lots of scapes and blooms, but sets very few or no pods.    

e.g. 
Parky's Prize - 25 scapes, no pods
Alex Summers - 6 scape, two pods, so far
Eventide - 4 scapes, two pods, so far.  (I tend to think Eventide is a diploid hybrid that is moderately fertile.  There are no entries listed for use as either a POD or POLLEN parent, so the jury is still out).  

Sometimes when I look at a plant, if it is a real good looker, stays vigorous all season long, offers great substance and tends to be slug resistant, my initial inclination is to suspect it is a triploid.   

I did not get to the Scientific Meeting at the convention, or the board meeting(s).  Was there any discussion at either of these meetings about adding a field to the registration form about ploidy level or DNA weight?   Not that hybridizers would initially know this, but as data comes in, it could be added later and woud be very helpful.  

In the meantime, is keeping this data independently the only answer?   Of course, with a plant like Parky's Prize, one season should teach me this lesson and I won't even need a database.  But doing this for hundreds of plants?  That seems archaic in this modern age, as does looking them up in a printed document.   

Incidentally, here is an interesting web page that enables me to answer Jim Hawes question from three or four years ago, "Why is a tetraploid any better than a diploid"?   http://www.austratec.com.au/Polyploidy%20From%20Evolution%20to%20Landscape%20Plant%20Improvement.htm  I'm sorry we're not able to continue this debate... 

Ciao, 
Andrew











_____________________________________________________________________
Get your own family web site at www.MyFamily.com!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index