Re: AIS Scientific community

> >Any time a person puts an observation,
> >opinion or statement out in the "scientific community", he or she should
> >be ready for questioning. Their conclusion should be based on objective
> >observations, considering every factor that may have come into play.

I went back over the article to refresh my memory and found that only 25
plants were evaluated, of which only 22 bloomed. Contrary to my recollection
both F1s and F2s were used.

10 F1s were sent to Maine along with one plant from the JI-type (JI x SIB) X
SIB group. (This last one is similar to #033 but without the yellow/pink
stylearms.) Open pollinated seeds from the SIB-type F1s were also sent and
while I can't find any mention of how many of these were grown out, it might
be safe to assume that this is where the F2s came from. Only 2 F1 plants,
duplicated in the Maine shipment, were sent to MA.

Scientific scrutiny should apply here as well and the low number of plants
in this evaluation is bothersome. I'm also a bit mystified why one
particular SIB-type F1 wouldn't have seemed just a bit unusual when compared
to pure Siberians. A typical sample of the leaf from a well-grown clump is
shown at http://www.povn.com/rock/JS1comp.html

I do find it interesting that in 7 of the 27 attempts at crossing opposite
types to each other that the plants reacted by forming pods whether or not
they resulted in seeds. :-?

Christy





To post to Sibrob: sibrob@yahoogroups.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index