Re: AIS Scientific community
- Subject: Re: [sibrob] AIS Scientific community
- From: a*@toad.net
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:25:25 -0500 (EST)
>Anyone could prove they *didn't* find something.
How true. And anyone can claim they *did* find something. Unfortunately for
those of us who are looking for something, it is easy to see what's not there.
> My main objections are due to the fact that every factor has not been
> considered. The Scientific focus has been entirely on what the F1s look
> like
> and if they'll produce seed regardless of whether the cvs used are
> compatible.
The most important factor IS what they look like.
> Chromosome counts, behavior, chromatography, and visually obvious
> hybrid
> markers in some of the F2s and F3s have been considered irrelevant.
They are all parts of the big picture, but chromosome counts are not the end
all, especially with plants. Though the magic number for I. ensata is 2n = 24,
there are some 2n = 25 cultivars out there....but they are still considered I.
ensata.
> Agreed. If these plants hadn't passed all of the tests I'd thrown at
> them
> they wouldn't have gone out in the first place.
The plants may have passed all of the tests that you threw at them, but they did
not pass the tests when other people conducted them. This is somewhat akin to
educational testing. Who wrote the test? Who conducted the test? Is the test valid?
> In your opinion (Everyone please feel free to jump in here), when
> considering such a claim should Science focus on one or two aspects of
> a
> limited population or take into consideration all of the collected data
> on
> the widest possible group of individuals?>
This is an interesting question, however it evades the issue at hand.
The plants that were evaluated for that article were your own submission. When
you send plants out, they will be evaluated. If you don't like the results of
the evaluation, it is too late to change the rules. The writers of that article
were most kind in their evaluation, but obviously, you did not like their
conclusion.
There are other hybridizers working with interspecies crosses that have had
results and have drawn conclusions that are markedly different than you own.
Generally, Tony Huber's and Lorena Reid's F1 hybrids show intermediate
characteristics which are obvious. 'Paltec' demonstrates the characteristics of
both its parents. The numerous pseudacorus-ensata crosses show intermediate
characteristics.
Furthermore, Tony Huber has observed that in subsequent generations, there is a
tendency for some of his versicolor-ensata crosses to revert to one of the
parents. You, however, claim that successive generations differentiate more.
Now, to answer your question, science should be used to try to find the truth.
We've all heard the axiom "Statistics don't lie, statisticians do." Though it
may not be intentional, the same can be said for science and scientists. Any
time someone makes a claim, it should be subject to scrutiny. That is what
science is really about.
R. Dennis Hager
on Delmarva
_________________________________________________________________________
This mail sent via toadmail.com, web e-mail @ ToadNet - want to go fast?
http://www.toadmail.com
To post to Sibrob: sibrob@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
