Re: TC and OS

Jim Hawes wrote:
> 
> Chick wrote:
> >
> > Any time I can start a discussion that gets people upset with one another I get
> > a rare sense of accomplishment.
> >
> > Jim, I don't do tc and don't know a lot about it, but question why if tc is as
> > reliable as division, why are there so many culls in tc.  Are the culls only
> > related to variegation patterns or do they cull plants that are not identical
> > for any other reasons.  According to Alex Summers, the 'Aphrodite' tc plants he
> > got had many different petal counts, so there are apparently some differences
> > there too.  It also seems to me that some of the tc I have had don't seem to
> > grow well as a group, but that could be due to cultural conditions.
> >
> > Chick
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
> > message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
> ............................................................................
> Dear Chick, Ran and others interested,
> 
> - When two or more people enter into a discussion over a controversial
> subject,
> 
> -When these participants have differnet experiences, interests,
> backgrounds and scholastic training,
> 
> -When participants have different motives, personalities and skills in
> expressing themselves,
> 
> -When terms used and meanings of words are different among these
> participants,
> 
> -When no guidelines have been decided upon, regarding what is being
> discussed and why.................
> 
> Then there is bound to be some differences of opinions and different
> final positions taken by these participants in the discussion. This is
> what has happened in our discussion about hostas derived from tissue
> culture and originator stock. The discussion has nothing to do with
> friendship between Ran Lydell and Jim Hawes which has been firmly
> established and will last a lifetime. Nor has it to do with Chick's
> skill in instigating a debate and getting people upset.
> 
> As I analyze the evolution of the discussion, it has wandered all over
> the hosta landscape but has not focused on a principle issue. There is
> no agreement of what we are talking about. One or two people may believe
> that the issue of the relative merits of tissue culture rests on how
> many "culls" result in tissue culture...as opposed to division
> separation from originator stock parent plants. In my view, this is not
> even the issue being discussed. Why? Because some among us are obviously
> trying to compare two phenomena without fully understanding the
> phenomena themselves.  This is obvious to me because of the erroneous
> use of terms, lack of knowledge by some participants about the tc
> process, the parameters used in defining measurements and their lack of
> uniformity. I can give an extreme example to make my point..........
> 
> How can one say that OS is better, more reliable, works better....or any
> other defintion to describe a qualitative or quantitative measurement
> when you are comparing different things under different circumstances?
> For example, one can assume that OS may mean dividing a known,
> true-to-type OS clump of a green Hosta cultivar into 20  divisions in
> one specific season. They are all true to form next spring and may sell
> for  a total of 100 dollars.
> 
>                      as opposed to:
> 
> An example of tissue culturing  an OS of Spilt Milk ( or any other
> unstable, high priced  variegated cultivar) over a period of two years,
> resulting in the production of 40,000 plants, of which 4000, let us say,
> are true to type to the original OS plant and 35,000 are reversions
> given a name 'Green Milk' which sell for two dollars each (70,000
> dollars total) and 999 are worthless, unsaleable culls. There was one
> sport which won some prizes and Mildred sold it to a rich Dutch
> propagator for 2000 dollars, let's say.
> 
> In this example, which is "better"?
> 
> Now you get my point in this rediculous , exaggerated example! You can't
> measure with validity the merits of one thing against another without
> standardization of the parameters and the criteria used and without
> evaluating the end products which result. Also, all of your assumptions
> in the "model" being used must be accurate, understood and agreed
> upon......and we haven't even initiated this essential task.
> 
> So fellows, let's back off this meaningless discussion. If you wish to
> "formalize" it, organize it into a legitimate format with rules, agreed
> assumptions, recognized accurate definitions of terms, etc. , then I
> will continue. But if not, I don't want to waste valuable time on
> meaningless disagreements.
> 
> Jim Hawes Oakland MD
> hawesj@gcnet.net
> 
> PS I will try to address some of Chick's questions on tc in another
> post......but even here, I have discussed these topics over and over so
> many times before in various formats that I am becoming weary. Whatever
> became of study on your own instead of asking others for their comments?
> I know full well that a controversy is likely to continue.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
> message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN********
Jim Chick and all
I again want to stress, re: the issue of whether Properly selected, 
grown, and culled Tc material is the same as stock selected from the 
"type" from OS.  My answer is yes.  Will I go on listing "naturals" only 
, from divisions of originators stock? My answer is yes.  Why?  Because 
many buyers want this material.  I DO NOT in most cases charge more for 
it , than others do for the same plant out of tC, in fact frequently 
less.  In the case of the very few that I charge more for as OS, I offer 
plants that are much larger than "usual".  
Ran
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index