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
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
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

TPB, some more thoughts, and a wish list

  • Subject: TPB, some more thoughts, and a wish list
  • From: "Roth, Barry" BRoth@BROBECK.COM
  • Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:57:16 -0700

The original The Pelargonium Breeder ("TPB") was conceived mainly as a way
for practicing breeders to communicate among themselves (at a time,
remember, when there was no Internet, and some of its content was casual
trip reports and tidbits, items that would be very much at home on an
Internet list today).  There is no question that a beginning, or aspiring,
or "armchair" breeder would find much of interest there, but the main thrust
was not to educate newcomers in the basics.

As a past (and potentially future) breeder of pelargoniums, let me suggest
some things that I think a revived TPB would be in a unique position to
offer:

--A formal data set and vocabulary for the reporting of features of
particular pelargonium taxa or cultivars.  This is essential for workers to
be able to communicate.  Standardized color terminology for flowers and
leaves would just be a start (and I have some ideas on that which do not
involve the RHS color chart, etc.); other observable characters should also
be defined, such as, for flowers, number of petals, extent of petal overlap
(or gap between), length and width of upper petals, same for lower petals;
formal meanings for, e.g., tall, medium, and short plant habit, specific to
a species and based on performance under standardized conditions; and so
forth.

--Reliable descriptions of species and cultivars of interest, expressed with
objectivity in this standard vocabulary.

--Reports of breeding results -- not just anecdotes from a couple of casual
crosses,* but something like "out of 30 seedlings from this orange seed
parent and white pollen parent, 2 bloomed out white, 25 salmon, and 3
orange."  In other words, reports that will help a breeder learn about the
heritability of certain characters and know what to expect from a cultivar
if he or she uses it as a breeding parent.  (Thirty seedlings is not a
random number in the example above.  To be assured of getting a seedling
that combined the recessive alleles of two independently inheriting genes,
under simple Mendelian inheritance, one could logically expect to have to
rear 30 or more individuals.)

--Reports of growth trials, again to help fully characterize hybrids and
cultivars, so a breeder can choose knowledgeably for parentage.  Some of the
most interesting trials might involve comparison of two or more similar
cultivars grown side by side:  which performed better, and in what ways.  I
almost think such comparative trials should be demanded before a new
cultivar is released on the public.  A new introduction should be *at least
as good* as the most similar varieties already in the trade, and should
preferably excel in some areas where the others come up short.

--Information regarding "failures" or experiments that failed to live up to
the breeder's expectations would be interesting too -- although it may be
human nature not to want to publicize one's false starts and bumblings.
(I'm also aware that some breeders may hold many of their results to be
proprietary, and I consider that understandable.)

I won't try to comment on organization with respect to the IGS, but I do
think this represents a distinct niche that would be of interest to some,
but possibly of no interest to many, and the question is whether the latter
group should be expected to support this specialized effort.

Supportively,

Barry

*Not that I think there is anything wrong, necessarily, with casual crosses.
Only that the information for larger data sets is more likely to be of
widespread and lasting use.













=======================================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@brobeck.com
BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
http://www.brobeck.com





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