Re: RE:HYB:Glaciata-genetics-second thoughts

--- In iris-talk@egroups.com, "Jan Clark" <janclarx@h...> wrote:
> >Thus, if glaciata gene is "pla" and a variation of plicata  and on
> >the same gene site, then it will work as Jan indicated. If it is 
on a
> >seperate gene site and acts as a modifier gene then it will work 
as I
> >had outined and you would need both sets of genes in full recessive
> >form for expression. I beleive that there are two sets of genes on
> >diferent sites. The second site could either be for the luminata 
gene
> >or for the glaciata gene or both. This  certainly enters into
> >theoretical areas. I will need to reflect on this some more and go
> >back to my hybridizing  records to pull out the information I have.
> 
> I guess there hasn't been enough work done on this to say for sure. 
My 
> understanding was that the glaciata pla was located at the pl 
allele, and 
> the luminata plu 'might' be or perhaps not. This might be worked 
out using 
> statistics, if someone was willing to do enough crosses, and spend 
time 
> growing them on, and testing the crosses, and recording the 
results. That is 
> probably nearly as big an ask, as expecting someone to unravel the 
DNA 
> strand, and translate the results using electron microscopy, or 
whatever 
> fancy techniques they use these days.
> I think it would be more fun just hypothesising the results of a 
cross, from 
> studying it's pedigree, then doing the cross and seeing what shows 
up.
> 
> Cheers, Jan
> 
I had been giving this some thought. I use to keep track of all the 
offspring from crosses to evaluate the genetics but found this to be 
very time consuming. At this time I evaluate seedlings as I go and 
turf out plants not desired as they bloom. As a result I can only 
gestimate the ratios of different crosses and the possible genetic 
factors. One thought is for myself or some one playing with luminata 
/glaciatas to hire someone (perhaps with help of a scientific grant 
from AIS) to collect the data so it can be evaluated later. As I look 
at the various outcomes from 
plicata/glaciata/fancy/dotted/streaked/brokencolor etc, I don't see 
how we can get everthing on one allele site. There are too many 
variations. Every luminata seem to be able to produce glaciatas in 
their offspring. Keith Keppels luminatas come from a long line of 
inbreeding involving plants known to have the pla gene. So?? where 
did the lumnata come from? I'm rereading some of the old literature 
to see what it says. Its been awhile since I looked at it. Most of 
the time theory follows experience to provide an explination of what 
we get/saw. the theory is then used to make a prediction and then the 
theory is tested. It might be time to do this and start colecting 
data. If pla is a seperate allele on the PL location then there may 
well be lots of glaciatas out here that we are not aware of. Ususlly 
you know for sure when they come from a plicat cross as pl is a 
recessive gene. If they come from a back cross of glaciata X Pl then 
a test cross with a plicata would be nessesary to evaluate for sure. 
Thus we may be looking at a pure coloured carotene/lycopene (non 
anthocyin) that is a glaciata and not know it. It certainly would be 
a worthwhile test of whether the glaciata gene is on the Pl locus. 
Any one willing to try? You would have to note the colour patern of 
each offspring and be prepared to cross back to a pl pl pl pl plicta 
in order to properly evaluate the outcome. The ratio of types of off 
spring would be needed for proper evaluation. 


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/486170/_/975694458/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index