Re: HYB: an idea of dosages...

--When male sterility is due to a coplete lack of anthers, it is often due to a mutation in a gene that make anthers, or even the structure the anther developes from, not one that specificly makes the pollen.
   
  Flats often have proto stamen, sometimes as many as two per petal.  So the notion that the signifigant question is pollen production seems to be on track.
  
---If there is only one flattie with pollen, I'd use that flattie on all I had, at least once, in hopes of getting more flatties with pollen. I'd have to know if that would work. Plans from then on would depend on those results.
At the same time, I'd also try pollen of the related non-flatties, to get more flatties. And I'd do some wider crosses to broaden the genetics of the flatties.

  Clematis, (funny you should mention that one) makes pollen, but not always good pollen, and it's not always flat either. I used it some this past season but not a lot.  Only take I got involving Clematis was as pod parent and the seeds rotted.  I like the idea of focusing on Clematis as a pollen parent... and whichever of those white uglies it is that has the reputation for making pollen.  Might be worth designating a stalk of SIX PACK  to cross with those two...  Hmm, looks like I got pollen off ANGEL CHIFFON to take on LITTLE FREAK... those seeds also rotted...  I'm still working on my seed management.  ANGEL CHIFFON is only a sib of a grandparent though, don't guess that is quite the same as a sib to an actually flat... starting to wish I hadn't already cleaned out my pollen collecting cups... I could find out if I had gotten any pollen off anybody.
  
--In flatties, so I have read, the standards or what would have been standards, usually become falls, complete with beards. Sounds to me like a gene that triggers a change in developement (by turning off genes that make standards and turning on genes that make falls) and that change turns off anther developement. My guess.
   
  I think I'm kinda following the same trains as you Walter... here's what my revised idea is.  Since flatties do have stamen, or at least proto stamen without pollen, it doesn't track that the flats are just plain 'ol female.  But what if flats simply produce more estrogen (or the plant equivalent) than a non-flat.  That could explain the presence of anthers without pollen.  A human who is exposed to too much hormone of the opposite sex can become infertile... like those (Russian?) female gymnasts a while back, right?  So what if the essence of flat is a more active production of 'estrogen?  The imbalance of 'testosterone' might also account for the production of beards and the flaccid standards.  That's kinda how transexuals work, isn't it.... the right hormones stimulate secondary sex characteristics.

--- It seems that there is an arilbred, named Clematis or something, that is is flat. If in fact my memory is correct, then it would be amazing that the genes for flat in TBs came together with an unknown gene for flat in arils I'll have to look into that. If such an arilbred exists, then what I think about this would be altered. And I'd have to admit I'm wrong and drop put of this group in shame. (that's a joke, OK?)

  According to my notes CLEMATIS is from i. dalmatica.  Does that make it an AB?  I'm still fuzzy on Arils... but it doesn't 'look' like an AB.  Don't quit, Walter...vbg
   
  Ok, you said something about pollenating a flat with a flat to determine if flat is homo-zygous...  Let me see if I understand where you're going... I'm further from my genetics classes than you are.  
   
  If flat x flat is a fertile cross and produces seedlings and, if flat is a homozygous 'dominant' trait, then 100% of the seedlings will exhibit flat characteristics.  I'm going to allow for the moment that a non-flat with six beards would be 'exhibiting flat characteristics.  If flat x flat is fertile and produces seedlings, and if flat is homozygous recessive, then all of the seedlings will exhibit.  However, in the second generation the 'dominant' FF seedlings would continue to exhibit, while the 'recessive' ff seedlings would not exhibit at all.
   
  If flat x flat is a fertile cross and produces seedlings, and if flat is a trait which can be expressed heterosexually....  then if it's a dominant trait you would have 3/4 of seedlings would exhibit.  If flat is recessive then only 1/4 would exhibit.
   
  presumably if anyone had produced an entire flock of flats from a single cross they would have  mentioned it for posterity..  But I think Tuller's flats derived from crosses of RHYTHM to seedlings which exhibited flat characteristics... like extra beards.
   
  I know for example SIX PACK X INDIGO PRINCESS produced at least one (pipeline) flat...   INDIGO PRINCESS without the flat child, would have a dosage of 12.5% since she is a child of a flat grandparent.  Thus that pipeline seedling would have had dosage of 56.25%.  I have a few seedlings from this past year with that dosage... just ten so far.  So, lemee see here... if...
   
  hmmm,  I think I need to putter with my dosages a bit...not sure how to translate them as far as FF vs ff...  of course flat could be dependent on more than one gene..  It could be true that the 'hormone imbalance' has to be in place before the flat gene can express itself...
   
  Christian
  ky

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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