Re: MED?/AR?

From: Sharon McAllister <73372.1745@compuserve.com>

Poise your finger over that DELETE key, this is gonna get technical....

Mike Lowe wrote:

>  In running pedigrees for Cook-Douglas winners a fascinating problem was
>  encountered that I have not found extensively discussed.

<snip>  [Details regarding EASTER HOLIDAY]

>  If we are really dealing with an onco sari -- (Easter Holiday was not
>  mentioned in the Kay Nelson Keppel/Sharon McAllister Check List or in
any
>  ASI C.L.'s -- which would lead one to believe that it is NOT half onco
or
>  at least displays no obvious aril characteristics) what is it?

EASTER HOLIDAY was introduced during the period in which there were
separate systems for handling arilbreds and SDBs in terms of awards.  To be
eligible for arilbred awards, a cultivar had to be recorded with ASI but
registration with AIS was optional.  To be eliglble for SDB awards,
registration with AIS was mandatory and recording with ASI was not allowed.
 As far as I have been able to determine, EASTER HOLIDAY was registered
with AIS as an SDB but not recorded with ASI.  It was the hybridizer's
option and, in this case, Durrance clearly decided that EASTER HOLIDAY best
fit the SDB class.  So I think it's safe to say that it displays few, if
any, aril characteristics. 

But is it half onco?  That's much harder to answer.  Freeman Yendell
counted it as having 40 chromosomes.  Considering its ancestry, that would
suggest an AABD [10+10+12+8]  tetraploid.

[Note to HYB 201 participants:  analyzing its pedigree, what other
complements could it have if you didn't already know that it had been
counted as having 40 chromosomes?]

Of course, there are other possiblities, too.   I could find no information
regarding the source of the stock Freeman counted.  It could have been a
misidentified cultivar.  The recorded cross could have been contaminated. 
The Sari pollen parent could have been an unregistered SDB rather than the
onco species I. sari.   It's all a matter of conjecture.  Whatever the
explanation, in the aril world it has been generally accepted that the
pollen parent of EASTER HOLIDAY was not the onco species I. sari and that
it is actually a BBDD [12+12+8+8] amphidiploid.

This could be resolved by breeding tests, but I don't know whether any have
been made.  Does it breed like /n amphidiploid SDB or an unbalanced
tetraploid?

Dorothy Willott added:

>  I don't know anything about "Sari", but Easter Holiday does have a small
>  amount of Onco blood from its pod parent, Brownie.  Brownie's pod parent
was a
>  Geddes Douglas seedling: (Minnie Colquitt X I. pumila).  The pollen
parent was
>  Zwanenburg: (Lutescens aurea x I. susiana).  Zwanenburg is in the Aril
>  Checklist, but Brownie and Easter Holiday are not.  They, apparently,
were
>  registered as MDB and SDB respectively, and therefore are not recognized
by
>  the Aril Society.

I do not know why BROWNIE would have been omitted from the latest ASI
Checklist.  It dates to an era before arilbreds had a special registration
code and it was included in both the Errata for the 1976 list and in the
"PROOF" version distributed in 1989.  

Sharon McAllister
73372.1745@compuserve.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or
service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit
http://www.onelist.com/advert.html for more information.
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index