Re: Re: Re: HYB: another terminology question
iris@hort.net
  • Subject: Re: Re: Re: HYB: another terminology question
  • From: S* D* <m*@bellsouth.net>
  • Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:26:43 -0500
As I was afraid, I got a post formatting error. I did not intend my last post to be one continuous paragraph. I used my email client to compose the post. I used carriage returns to create paragraphs. That did not convey paragraphs. What might I do differently?
New paragraph (NP), lol: My point is one mis-attribution of parents and the monkey wrenches that that might throw into a program. Not one of genetics per se. Yes, provided the parents truly are the same, sibling from A x B 2008 and sibling from B x A 2012 all share the same inheritance probabilities. But say there is a protocol error and in 2010 the label on B mistakenly got placed on C then you have a whole new ballgame. You thought were getting all A/B siblings but you were not. If the gene of critical importance is on B and not A or C then you can see how the program might go down years of dead ends.
(NP): Sibling from the same pod incur less risk of mis-attribution of parents. So pod siblings and non-pod sibling have a difference in terms of protocol. (A suitable program numbering system might not assign a formal term to this difference but it can convey the relationship.) Certainly it is often not possible or practical to work from the same pod set; a hybridizer has to repeat a A/B cross in order to get more A/B seeds, or there is a 1/16 chance of inheritance and 4 seeds in the pod. One does what one has to despite the chances. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index