Re: Clones

---

Darlene,

being a huge SF fan, clone always has a certain malevolent/romantic quality for me!  Essentially the definition in most SF is correct, just not broad enough.  Most of us will tend to see animal clones in a different light than plant clones, although the same rules apply.

Sean and Vic have defined this well.  As you may take from these definitions, taxonomy does not play a defining role.  A taxon is any scientifically described organism.  It doesn't need to be a species, just describable.  A clone could be described and considered a taxon.  There is no rule governing this. A taxon, however, does not typically represent a clone, although it may.

Clone represents genetic uniqueness.  Which is why, when something is replicated in such a manner that the genome doesn't change (meiosis would be typical), it is considered cloning.  All replicated 'off-spring' are members of the same clone and are genetically identical.  This kind of reproduction can be as simply as taking a cutting of a plant or via tissue culture in a laboratory, such as we know with many plants.  Take the mass marketing of orchids.  These are largely clones increased through tissue culture.  Interestingly, mutation is a constant in all kinds of reproduction, which means a tiny percent of 'cloned' individuals will not be identical.  They will be mutants.  Most of these mutants are non-desirable, but some are quite attractive.  The orchid Vuylstekeara Cambria (the name of the registered grex or cross) has been cloned for about 30 years, now, and the original clone, 'Plush' (clonal names are always in parenthesis) has mutated at least twice, producing a beautiful red-mottled version and a striking yellow-orange version, both of which have received their own clonal names.  They are no longer genetically identical to the original 'Plush'. They are mutations or 'sports'.

Now, you mentioned I. virginica alba (alba is not capitalised), which is a taxon.  A described form/variety of the species.  Albas are common in most plants and any given genetically unique one is a clone.  To help seperate them, they may be given clonal names, which will help to ID them, but this is only done when one clone is particulary outstanding and deserving of recognition.  Named or un-named, unique genetics would allow them to be referred to as clones.

With roses, where one often refers to a mutation as a sport (other plants as well), it is following an older naming tradition that is not accepted by the scientific community.  None the less, we are talking about potential new clones.  I say potential, as a sport may not be stable and thus not reproduceable.  If they prove stabile and of worth, they will typically be given a clonal name and registered (as with V. Cambria).  With roses, it can become confusing, as the name used to market a rose may not be its clonal name.  This is another story.

Getting back to clone, the only important item to consider is its genetics.  Not its name or taxonomical description (should it even have one).  Every registered Hemerocallis is a clone.  They are genetically unique and reproduced asexually (division).

Strains are another thing altogether.  They refer to a general look that is created from a particular population of parent plants.  Typically, strains are sold as seed resulting from the crossing of particular parent.  The offspring are all genetically related, but not identical.  Any given one may be considered a clone, but these brothers and sisters are not clones of each other or their parents.


OK, confused?

ciao,

jamie

Am 12.12.2012 18:11, schrieb Darlene Moore:

-- 
Jamie V.

_______________________

Köln (Cologne)
Germany
Zone 8