Re: MDBs continued (and an MTB question to boot.)
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: MDBs continued (and an MTB question to boot.)
- From: S* M* <7*@compuserve.com>
- Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 21:31:54 -0600 (MDT)
Mike Lowe wrote:
> A dip to tet cross giving an unreduced gamete is tough to accomplish -=
-
and
> a tet to dip is an even worse case scenario.
Quite true. In either case the odds are against getting viable seedlings=
,
and most of the seedlings you do get turn out to be relatively infertile=
triploids -- NOT fully fertile tetraploids resulting from an unreduced
gamete. But even that reduced fertility can be useful. In theory, half =
of
the seedlings produced by crosses between triploids and tetraploids shoul=
d
be fertile. In my experience, the odds are better than that.
> Sindjkha (Sturtevant 18) has not been counted, however, it has many
> characteristics of a tet. I have never found enough pollen to nail dow=
n
my
> conjecture. In the one cross I can find in the records, Sindjkha was t=
he
> pod parent.
> Tetraploidy came certainly through the Amas --> Souv. de Mme. Gaudicha=
u
-->
> Germaine Perthuis leg of the below cross:
> Anne-Marie Cayeux (Cayeux 28) pod Sindjkha (Sturtevant 18)
pollen Germaine Perthuis (Millet 24)
> but whether it was a lucky shot or a routine tet to tet cross is not
known.
> I would guess Sindjkha is VERY hard to set a cross on.
Mike, do you think that SINDJKHA might be a triploid? Scant pollen is
sometimes an indicator of that.
Sharon McAllister
73372.1745@compuserve.com
