Re: Re: HYB: fall cyclic from IMM (was 06-48ARE Debrenee X Immortality
iris-photos@yahoogroups.com
  • Subject: Re: Re: HYB: fall cyclic from IMM (was 06-48ARE Debrenee X Immortality
  • From: B* C* <b*@ymail.com>
  • Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:31:54 -0800 (PST)

 

Hi Chuck,

I have been following all the IMM posts and your ideas on dominate and recessive traits.  So if summer rebloom is truly recessive, then it should follow that all vigorous seedlings from two sumer reblooming parents would be summer rebloomers.  Is that correct and has it been tested?

Thanks
Bill



From: "irischapman@aim.com" <irischapman@aim.com>
To: iris-photos@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, December 19, 2009 6:39:29 PM
Subject: Re: [iris-photos] Re: HYB: fall cyclic from IMM (was 06-48ARE Debrenee X Immortality

 

My point is that with Immortality X cyclic rebloomer, Immortality does not add any potential to rebloom that can't be gotten with any vigourous strong growing plant. Even oncers.  Plants with much better characteristics, giving a much higher proportion of quality seedlings.  And just as high a percentage of cyclic rebloomers. More product with less work.

This is because cyclic rebloom genes are dominant. The summer rebloom genes in Immortality are recessive, and will only produce a summer rebloomer if matched with other summer rebloomers. The rebloom factor in Immortality is irrelevant in a cross with a cyclic rebloomers

1)  Cyclic Rebloomers X vigorous plants = cyclic rebloomers
2) Summer rebloomers X vigorous plants =  all oncers (unless they are carriers of summer rebloom genes)
3) Cyclic rebloomers X Summer rebloomers =  cyclic rebloomes (same proportion as #1)
4) Immortality X Cyclic rebloomers = cyclic rebloomers (same as #1 & #3)  but with a small proportion of quality plants.

Chuck Chapman


-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Mann <lmann@lock-net. com>
To: iris-photos@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, Dec 19, 2009 12:11 pm
Subject: [iris-photos] Re: HYB: fall cyclic from IMM (was 06-48ARE Debrenee X Immortality

 
In general, IMM can definitely throw median plants with retro form, but
not always. From seedlings so far, I'd say IMM isn't homozygous for
these traits. Highly dependent on the cross.

Wish I could figure out in advance which ones would be most likely to be
good!

Betty's kids (with IMM as pollen donor) and several of mine (IMM pod
with pollen 3 of 4 survivors from STUNNING SERENADE, a few from the
CSONG cross, all three so far from AMITY ESTATE) are nice and tall.

I've had less success with substance (texture?), but did get at least
one from DUSKY GRAPE pollen that had superb substance, so it is possible.

Form has been all over the place, but FOGBOUND, AMITY ESTATE, CSONG
mostly have good form. None so far have had super wide/touching hafts,
but I've not had much pollen success from any touching haft parents yet.
FOG kids are small, short stalks, but form is definitely not median
retro on most that have bloomed so far.

VIOLET MIRACLE does the same thing - mostly retro form, but very wide,
touching hafts on seedlings from EASY LIVING.

<but with Immortality you also get short stalks, poor form, poor flower
texture. Chuck Chapman>

Linda Mann
east TN
snow all around, but missed us




Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index