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: Re: longipes Urajiro Hatchijo


>I give you the main conlusion as I reached them after carefull 
>examination I dont intend to give here a full report.

In any scientific study when you come to some conclusion you explain 
how you came to that conclusion.  To be a bit truthful, I'm not even 
certain what it is that you are concluding.  Are you saying that 
Longipes Urajiro Hatchijo (H. longipes var. latifolia 'Urajiro 
Hachijo') is a hybrid between longipes and rupifraga?  I'm not 
familiar with either species or Urajiro Hachijo, so I'm not going to 
argure that issue.  However, I find it amazing that you can measure 
the DNA content of two species and a supposed hybrid between them and 
conclude that the presumed hybrid is a hybrid between those two 
species just because the presumed hybrid has a DNA content half way 
between the two species.  Ben, there are probably 50 different species 
out there that have DNA content the same as longipes and rupifraga.  
Therefor, any of those other species could also be the parents of 
Urajiro Hachijo according to your research technique.

Ben, if you want to "prove" that a certain hosta is a hybrid between 
two particular species you do a whole bunch of different studies. You 
can do some multivariate statistical analysis along the lines of Edger 
Anderson's famous analysis of Louisiana Iris.  You can do comparative 
anatomy.  You can do gel electrophoreses and most importantly you can 
do analysis of the chromosomes; pairing at meiosis, chromosome banding 
and karyotype analysis.  You did nothing but measure the DNA content, 
found the presumed hybrid was between the two alleged parents and 
concluded that they are the parents.  BAD science!  

You are most likely measuring DNA with a flow cytometer (hope that is 
correct terminology for the instrument you are using, if not correct 
me) and I seriously doubt that your accuracy is good enough that you 
can measure the DNA content accurate enough to be certain the hybrid 
is really between the two alleged parents.  What you are using is good 
for seperating diploids, triploids and tetraploids from one another, 
but not much more then that.  

>Take it or leave it.

That may be the way gangsters, politicans and dictators act, but that 
is NOT the way scientist act.  If you are going to make some broad 
conclusion, you need to present the data to back up your views.  

We are still waiting for your proof for your cotyledon viewpoint!

Joe Halinar

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

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