Jump to content

Naming of selfed Sarracenias


Recommended Posts

Hello all

There is an interesting discussion on the german Forum because the correct naming of Sarracenia plants which are crossed with itself. How to name the seedlings of the following three plants after they are crossed with itself.

Sarracenia Wilkerson red

Sarracenia alata anthocyanin free

Sarracenia alata Stone County Alabama

The other question is, are there any rules written somewhere.

 

My suggestion is

Sarracenia Wilkerson red x self

Sarracenia alata anthocyanin free x self

Sarracenia alata Stone County Alabama x self

or

Sarracenia Wilkerson red x Sarracenia Wilkerson red

Sarracenia alata anthocyanin free x Sarracenia alata anthocyanin free

Sarracenia alata Stone County Alabama x

Sarracenia alata Stone County Alabama

or

Sarracenia Wilkerson red F1

Sarracenia alata anthocyanin free F1

Sarracenia alata Stone County Alabama F1

 

Thanks for answering

Alexander

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would go with the first option Alexander,it may not be correct but anyone can understand it straight away.

The second option could mean two different AF alata clones were crossed if a second plant was found to exist, as it could for the two stone co alatas,i have at least 3 seed grown clones from Stone co that are all different.

ada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wilkerson's Red is a hybrid so a self could show varying degrees of either parent so has to be shown as a  x self. 

S. alata anthocyanin free is just that, If the self cross is anthocyanin free.

S. alata Stone County is a location plant so a self would still only contain the genetics from that location so I can't see the need for any other name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

S. alata Stone County is a location plant so a self would still only contain the genetics from that location so I can't see the need for any other name.

Hello Fred

It could be helpful if you want a identical plant which you have seen in a friends greenhouse for example.

Edited by fischermans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

x self would be clear enough, then people will know the origin. There is nothing wrong about crossing with another plant of the same species and crossing the seedlings to obtain a proportion of anthocyanin free seedlings which all will be genetically different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

x self would be clear enough, then people will know the origin. There is nothing wrong about crossing with another plant of the same species and crossing the seedlings to obtain a proportion of anthocyanin free seedlings which all will be genetically different.

Thanks Mike but what if I don't write x self. Is it ok too or wrong. What is your thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great topic fischermans! F1 is used when you cross 2 genetically different clones with each other. It stands for the first filial generation. It's especially important in Sarracenia breeding because F1 crosses tend to be more vigorous than F2 (there are always exceptions to this rule). Below are some examples of F1 crosses:

1)S. flava var maxima (Cartaret Co, NC) x flava var. maxima (santa Rosa Co, FL)= S. flava var. maxima F1

2)S. flava var. rubricorpora Liberty Co, FL (clone A x best clone)= S. flava var. rubricorpora F1 Liberty Co, FL

3)S. rosea x flava var. rugelii= S. x naczii=S. x naczii F1

4)S. x Reptilian Rose x leucophylla= S. x Reptilian Rose x leucophylla F1

5)S. leucophylla 'RED'(California Carnivores clone) x leucophylla RED (franklin Co, FL clone B)=S. leucophylla 'RED' F1

With Sarracenia, I only write F1 on the tag if the seeds are a result of crossing dozens of different clones of the same species from the same population. For example, say I have 20 different clones of S. flava var. rubricorpora from Liberty Co, FL and I cross them all with each other and mix the seed pods together, I'd call those seeds S. flava var. rubricorpora F1 Liberty Co, FL.

In contrast, the universally correct symbol that describes a selfed plant is F2. F2 stands for the second filial generation. Examples are the best to understand how this works:

1) S. alata f. viridescens x self=S. alata f. viridescens F2

2) S. x catesbaei x self=S. catesbaei F2

3) S. leucophylla hurricane creek white clone F x self=S. leucophylla hurricane creek white clone F F2

4) S. x Adrian Slack x self=S. x Adrian Slack F2

5) S. ( rosea x flava var. rugelii) x self= S. Naczii x self= S. Naczii F2

5) s. x ((excellens x flava maxima x leucophylla) x (alata nigra purpurea)) x self= S. x ((excellens x flava maxima x leucophylla) x (alata nigra purpurea))F2 Doesn't matter how complex the cross is, if you self it, the whole thing is F2.

With Sarracenia, I always choose to write S. leucophylla F2 as opposed to S. leucophylla x self, for example, because F2 is universally understood.

Okay, now for the curve ball! In the examples of F2 crosses, I claimed that when you self adrian slack, the resulting seeds are S. x Adrian Slack F2. This is true if and only if the original Adrian Slack clone was the result of crossing 2 genetically different clones (ie. if Adrian Slack was verified to be the result of S. flava var. rugelii x leucophylla, for example). Since the plant came from the wild, there's no knowing if Adrian Slack is an F1, F2, F3, F4,etc. We have no way to prove if Adrian Slack was the result of flava x leucophylla, or a moorei x moorei, or a (leucophylla x flava) x flava) x leucophylla, etc.

If Adrian Slack was the result of a S. x moorei F1 that was selfed, then the original Adrian Slack clone would technically be S. x Adrian Slack F2. In this case, all seedlings from selfing Adrian Slack would technically be S. x Adrian Slack F3. Confused? Don't worry about this part, it's only for the extra hardcore plant nerds! No, you're not a dum-dum if you don't get this part, it's complex as heck! The main thing is to understand the difference between F1 and F2.

In general and to sum up, cross 2 genetically different clones with each other and the seedlings are F1. Self a plant and you get F2. Are there any rules? Technically, yes but there's a lot of grey areas, so Sarracenia breeders, for example, tend to bend the rules to fit their needs.

Edited by meizwang
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Ada

There are a few person on the german forum which say:

You can name the seedlings of a selfed S.alata Stone County Alabama again S.alata Stone County Alabama without any further additions. I think this is wrong.

Alexander

No, that is completed correct.  Otherwise you'll lose the location data.  Those genetics are indeed from that location.  No reason to misrepresent the plants as maybe being from somewhere else...

 

You can add a note that the seeds are from a self flower, as they usually are out crossed in Sarracenia and probably will show some inbreeding depression.  It doesn't change the location though.

 

S.alata Stone County Alabama selfed.

Edited by Dave Evans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Sarracenia, I always choose to write S. leucophylla F2 as opposed to S. leucophylla x self, for example, because F2 is universally understood.

 

 

Yeah, I worked with plants for decades and never seen this...  So very universal!  However, the logic is correct.  But to say its "universally known" doesn't take into account how US schools teach almost nothing anymore; except how to pass tests.  If it is actually "Univerally known", then people would know about it, and it would show up in common parlance, like "pass me a Phillips screw driver".
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that is completed correct.  Otherwise you'll lose the location data.  Those genetics are indeed from that location.  No reason to misrepresent the plants as maybe being from somewhere else...

 

You can add a note that the seeds are from a self flower, as they usually are out crossed in Sarracenia and probably will show some inbreeding depression.  It doesn't change the location though.

 

S.alata Stone County Alabama selfed.

Dave, for me it's not the question if you can use the location data but I think if you do that you have to add selfed or x self or F2.

 

Mike, great post thank you for that.

Edited by fischermans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, x self is very clear.

 

I would think plants grown directly from seed collected from a location can exclusively be named as that location.

After that I think it would make sense to say S. plant/ location/ clone number x S. plant/ location/ clone number  resulting offspring would possibly no longer carry location data as they are no longer naturally pollinated on site, maybe one can retain the location data as a source of origin.

Ian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, x self is very clear.

 

I would think plants grown directly from seed collected from a location can exclusively be named as that location.

After that I think it would make sense to say S. plant/ location/ clone number x S. plant/ location/ clone number  resulting offspring would possibly no longer carry location data as they are no longer naturally pollinated on site, Ian.

Thank you Ian.Thats exactly what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you use pollen from a plant from the Yellow Valley and pollinate a plant from Yellow Valley then the resultant offspring are more likely to be genuine Yellow Valley than those wild pollinated in Yellow Valley where the pollinator could have just flown in from Orange Valley over the hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I worked with plants for decades and never seen this...  So very universal!  However, the logic is correct.  But to say its "universally known" doesn't take into account how US schools teach almost nothing anymore; except how to pass tests.  If it is actually "Univerally known", then people would know about it, and it would show up in common parlance, like "pass me a Phillips screw driver".

Perhaps I didn't say it correctly; F1 is universally understood by all Countries because the term F1 is a Latin term. Whether people in the US or anywhere else use it often or not is irrelevant. Nevertheless, point well made!

Edited by meizwang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you use pollen from a plant from the Yellow Valley and pollinate a plant from Yellow Valley then the resultant offspring are more likely to be genuine Yellow Valley than those wild pollinated in Yellow Valley where the pollinator could have just flown in from Orange Valley over the hill.

We were all fine until you complicated it Fred lol.

I see where you are coming from and I am not whole heartedly disagreeing with you but the yellow and orange valley might be what makes the location unique and successive breeding at home may breed out the traits.

We are though talking about seed from a location that will indeed produce plants the same as Yellow Valley even if they have a bit of Orange Valley and a tad of Purple Dyke, but then what about after that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

from my point of view, it's a question of wether we're talking about a named and described clone or not.

The selfed S. alata anthocyanin free is a S. alata anthocyanin free, because nobody registered a clone named so. It's just an anthocyanin free S. alata and needs no adds.

The selfed S. alata from Stone County carrys all the genetical information from that location, where - Fred mentioned it - no plant is identical. So, I can not see a need to label it with 'x self', 'F1' or something else. It just stays a S. alata from Stone County.

But if we're talking about registered clones, like S. 'Brooks Hybrid','Cronus' or something else, we have a description of how the plant has to look like. Due to the fact, that you can allways get different looking plants from self pollinations, it's absolutely neccessary to add the 'x self'. For good reason the describer of the clone mentioned, that it has to be propagated vegetatively.

The same applies to self pollinated and unregistered hybrids, because a wide spread variation of the resulting plants is possible.

This is what I think, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Regards,

Christian

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you use pollen from a plant from the Yellow Valley and pollinate a plant from Yellow Valley then the resultant offspring are more likely to be genuine Yellow Valley than those wild pollinated in Yellow Valley where the pollinator could have just flown in from Orange Valley over the hill.

Fred-using that same logic, parent plants from the yellow valley are just as likely to already be mixed with plants from the orange valley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, x self is very clear.

 

I would think plants grown directly from seed collected from a location can exclusively be named as that location.

After that I think it would make sense to say S. plant/ location/ clone number x S. plant/ location/ clone number  resulting offspring would possibly no longer carry location data as they are no longer naturally pollinated on site, maybe one can retain the location data as a source of origin.

Ian.

The same logic can be applied to the plant itself.  It was collected as seed from xxx place.  And it didn't grow there either.  Why make the distinction?  If you self it, the pollen is of the same location as the seed is...  No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Orange Valley and Yellow Valley both would be one population/location with those pollinator dynamics.

Edited by Dave Evans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred-using that same logic, parent plants from the yellow valley are just as likely to already be mixed with plants from the orange valley.

Yes Mike, I agree, so would that also eliminate the use of F1, F2, F3 etc because the starting point is an unknown?

 

.............. and a tad of Purple Dyke, but then what about after that?

 

Purple Dyke is far too far away Ian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex invited me to make a contribution to this topic. As I am bussy quite a lot in these weeks? ihavent's read all the posts in this topic, so my contribution will be completely independent.

 

I am bit afraid, that there are not any taxonomic rules how to solve this rigorously. Or let's say there are not any to ma knowledge.

 

Regarding to the provided examples:

S. alata f. viridescens is a taxon and will be S. alata f. viridescens again if will be selfed of crossed two localised clones in between. So it is absolute correct to label any next generation just S. a. f. viridescens. But for better evidence and comfor of us - collectors i strongly reccomend to label selfed seeds / seedlings as "self" or "selfed" or any clear comment, that the material was selfed = might suffer for imbreeding depression.

 

Sarracenia alata Stone County Alabama. If it is second generation raised in cultivation, it is not natural genotype enymore. Therefore it should be clearly labeled as F2, F3, F4 to indicate how far is it from original genotype. Labeling "F2" is more general. It can cover selfed plants as well as plants crossed for example Stone Co., clone "A" x clone "B". So "F2" is taxonomically sufficient, but again I strongly reccomend for us, collectors any clear label whether it was "selfed" or "clone "A" x "B""

 

Sarracenia Wilkerson red - if it is selfed it is not the cultivar anymore and it should be labeles even just Sarracenia x moorei. If someone wants, so feel free to label it F2 / selfed, but this should be absolutely clearly stated as it is not original cultivar anymore.

 

Sarracenia leucophylla x minor F2 = again general label applicable for selfed plant as well as cross of clone "A" x clone "B". Again I suggest any clear lable whether it was selfed or two clones in between = better viability.

 

I do this in my growlist / seedlist...

 

Whishing nice day to everyone :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A scenario has just occurred to me.

If you collect wild seed and germinate it, not all seed may germinate due to artificial (within reason) or not ideal conditions.

Then some seedlings will prosper better than others possibly contrary to its natural location.

Also the grower will favour some plants to others and these selected for future self crossing, we are already moving towards cultivated plants not representing the natural traits of the original location.

 

Fred, The bumble Bee's of Purple Dyke have jetpacks ( Know your location data)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...