I think the way the word is specifically used can be confusing as well. If you grow a daylily from seed and you like it, you can propogate it by removing the offsets and growing them on their own. You have just "cloned" it, and the offsets are "clones" of the original, but generally you wouldn't say it that way. Rather, you refer to your daylily and its offsets (and their offsets, etc) collectively as "a clone" that you have vegetatively propagated. Typically you will assign it a cultivar name, which is now synonymous with that clone.
If you then pollinate your daylily "clone" and grow a new plant from the seed, you have not "cloned" it, because the new plant is not genetically identical to its parent. You can, however, vegetatively propogate this new plant, and you now have a second "clone", different from the first.
Each daylily grown from seed is a NEW clone, different from the parent clone. Each daylily grown from a vegetative offset is the SAME clone as the plant it offset from. As others have said, "clone", at least as used in horticulture, is shorthand for "genetically unique individual".
Sean Z
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Darlene Moore <d*@carolinarubber.com> wrote:
Jamie,
You mean there aren't any registered (registered with some governing
body) daylily that didn't come into being by sex! I thought one could
pollinate daylilies and then the plant grown from the seed would not be
considered a clone.
Darlene
On 12/12/2012 4:19 PM, JamieV. wrote:
>
> 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,
>>
>> I think I have this straight but as you say "...as one often thinks a
>> clone is only created through this {tissue culture} method of
>> reproduction..." I had always thought of "clones" in popular Science
>> Fiction Literature and in terms of mammals.
>> Your definition of "any defined genetic version of a plant" do you mean
>> defined by the taxonomy community?
>>
>> Mark mentions Iris virginica ALBA. How is that classified and where did
>> it come from?
>> A spontaneous mutation would be called what? Is a spontaneous mutation
>> in roses called a "sport?"
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Darlene
>>
>>
>> On 12/8/2012 7:33 AM, JamieV. wrote:
>>> Darlene,
>>>
>>> I would add to Mark's definition that a clone is any defined genetic
>>> version of a plant. That is to say, it must not be a species, but may
>>> be. Any two plants (species, hybrids, it doesn't matter), when
>>> crossed succesfully, create a generation of offspring. Any of these
>>> offspring belong to that particular cross, which we refer to as a
>>> grex. Each individual is a clone, as it is genetically unique. Any
>>> vegetative increase are parts of the same clone. This would include
>>> tissue culture, for the most part, as well. Thus we have the word
>>> 'cloning' in use to refer to tissue culture. A bit of a misnomer, as
>>> one often thinks a clone is only created throught this method of
>>> reproduction, which would be untrue. Everytime you divide a specific
>>> plant, you are increasing the clone. Every new growth of a plant is
>>> an increase of this clone. They are genetically identical (excluding
>>> spontaneous mutation, which can take place).
>>>
>>> In commerce, a named variety, that is vegetatively increased, is a
>>> distinct clone. We see this with orchids, garden perennials, even
>>> trees and shrubs. Often, plants are sold under incorrect names, which
>>> confuses the issue, but i think we have all learned to take this in
>>> stride.
>>>
>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> Am 07.12.2012 15:24, schrieb Darlene Moore:
>>>> Mark,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your sentence "Clones are variations within a species."
>>>> I enjoyed the Historic or Heritage Daylilies site. Hemerocallis fulva
>>>> is a favorite of mine also.
>>>>
>>>> Your photo of Iris virginica is much more blue than the irises I have.
>>>> About twenty-five years ago I bought these from Louisiana Nursery in
>>>> Opelousas. I have moved twice but carried them with me. Last winter
>>>> something started eating the rhizomes. I blamed voles as my cat of 13
>>>> years died so I thought he had kept the critters at bay. The population
>>>> of irises was reduced by two-thirds, but are now coming back --- we
>>>> took in two kittens from the local animal shelter last May. It will be
>>>> a "scorched earth" policy around the house I'm sure!
>>>>
>>>> I have attached two photos of my Iris virginica.
>>>>
>>>> Darlene
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/5/2012 8:10 PM, Mark A. Cook wrote:
>>>>>> How does one know they are clones? And does it matter to anyone?
>>>>> Darlene,
>>>>> They are probably variants within the species. Clones are
>>>>> variations within a species. While not Irises, there are many clones of
>>>>> Hemerocallis fulva, which is a Daylily species. You can see 6 of them here
>>>>> http://members.tripod.com/bigalligator_1/id9.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Jumping back to Irises, the first two photos on
>>>>> http://members.tripod.com/bigalligator_1/id20.html are of two types of Iris
>>>>> virginica. The white one is the clone ALBA. The bluish one, I am not sure
>>>>> if it is a clone or not. If anyone knows, please let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark A. Cook
>>>>> b*@bellsouth.net
>>>>> Dunnellon, Florida.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Jamie V.
>>>
>>> _______________________
>>>
>>> Köln (Cologne)
>>> Germany
>>> Zone 8
>>>
>
>
> --
> Jamie V.
>
> _______________________
>
> Köln (Cologne)
> Germany
> Zone 8
>
--
Darlene Moore
Carolina Rubber & Specialties, Inc.
Phone: 336-744-5111 Fax: 336-744-5101
Email: d*@carolinarubber.com
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iris-species/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iris-species/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
i*@yahoogroups.com
i*@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
i*@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
