Re: Clones

---

Thanks.  The meaning of "clone" is coming into sharper focus for me 
although it seems context has alot of do with it.  It is alittle 
confusing to say a clone is a genetically unique individual and to also 
say a clone is a copy.  I think this is a semantic problem, that I may 
be past now.

Once I read that hemerocallis fulva that we see today is exactly the 
same  as Napoleon would have seen.  Because what we see today is a clone 
or the clone or just clone.  It is not the original hemerocallis fulva 
plant, but it is an exact genetic copy and it is genetically unique from 
any other plant and was increased vegetatively.  As opposed to a Quercus 
robur Napoleon would have seen as the oak would have increased its 
population by the acorns. The oak is probably "cloned" by now but as 
others have said in this discussion "that is another story."
Did I say this correctly?

No, I am not planning on going into plant breeding as I am past that, 
but I am curious.  I use enough words incorrectly and as Jamie said 
"clone always had a certain maleviolent/romantic quality."

Darlene

Darlene,

a quick addendum to the above.  A clone is not necessarily a copy, yet a copy is a clone.  This conundrum come from the tendency to refer to non-sexual reproduction as cloning.  Replicating the clone.  We do this a lot in English.  Farm-farming.  We understand the difference, yet they are part of the same thing.  One is the object, the other the manipulation of the object.

The clone H. fulva 'Europa' is the same plant seen by Napoleon.  It is largely sterile, as well, being a triploid. And massivly clonal-reproductive.  It just keeps on going.  However, there are other clones of H. fulva, such as 'Hankow', 'Rosalind', Nesmith Clone, etc.

I realise I'm over-stirring the soup.  Please forgive me.

-- 
Jamie V.

_______________________

Köln (Cologne)
Germany
Zone 8