RE: CULT:Sports--anyone?
- To: i*@onelist.com
- Subject: RE: [iris-talk]CULT:Sports--anyone?
- From: J* C*
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:54:44 PST
From: "Jan Clark" <janclarx@hotmail.com>
>Now, to apply this to iris, means that even daughter rhizomes >attached to
>the mother rhizome will not be genetically identical. >Given the number of
>cells being replicated, it is probably safe to >say that at least one DNA
>pair will have been altered. So for >sports, sufficient DNA pairs have
>been altered to affect the >appearance of the iris.
>
>Does this make any sense?
>Maureen Mark
The problem with your argument is that the mutation is not in the genetic
material of the plant. It is a SOMATIC mutation, not a mutation of the DNA
strands. While I can't quote scientific papers off the top of my head, I am
fairly sure this is correct.
The DNA remains unchanged, the genetic potential is exactly that of the
plant bearing the sport. Something happens to alter the expression of the
DNA, at a cellular level. For purposes of breeding, there should be no
difference genetically between an iris, and it's sport, except the obvious -
the germ cell from any iris usually only contains 1/2 of the parental DNA,
which will have an enormous number of possible permutations and
combinations.
I wonder if anyone can quote any instances where a sport has reverted back
(or sported to) the original variety?
Cheers, Jan Clark, Australia
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0%
Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/937/0/_/486170/_/954212085/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
