Recommended Posts

I'm too lazy to read all of all the replies so forgive me repeating what's already been said, but I'm desperate to stick my oar in to this issue!

 

Selfed plants (or indeed crossed plants) only need to be designated as such when talking about specific clones, cultivars or crosses of plants non-identical location data. However in these instances I think we all agree it is essential they are labelled as selfed/cross etc. somehow because any selfed clone/clonal cultivar is not that clone/clonal cultivar

 

I would personally use "x self" appended to labelling as it saves space and the use of F1,F2 generations has the unfortunate coincidence of looking the same as accession codes for S. flavas

I don't want plants labelled  {F3 S. flava var. suchandsuch "somethingorother form" F2} -which is which? Also the use of these generation labels could easily be misidentified as being x F2, F3 etc. and otherwise not very useful outside of the use within inheritance experiments or for (especially annual?) plants where a specific cross reliably results in predictable characteristics. not produced by selfing that cross.

 

With something like multiple generations of a cultivar it might be better to label the decendents something like: {S. x moorei ((("Wilkerson's red" x self) x self) x self)} 

 

Antho-free plants are just antho-free plants and when selfed are definitely antho-free so no "selfed" appellation is required (although see below), unless specific clones are involved again or you want to make a point of guaranteeing for someone else that seeds will be of  antho-free plants.

 

Unless a named location plant has an accession code (MK-RG5) it's almost pointless calling it {S. rubra ssp. gulfensis [Yellow River,FL] x S. rubra ssp. gulfensis [Yellow River,FL]} since this is also true of the parent plant(s). I will however say this is misleading labelling for selfed plants as it implies a cross between two clones from the same place.

Conversely the distinction between {S. x moorei "Wilkerson's red" x "Wilkerson's red"} and {S. x moorei "Wilkerson's red" x self} evaporates because all "Wilkerson's red" plants (like a true cultivar I presume) because plants are presumably genetically identical (not true of all cultivars in other plant genera or indeed the special case of S. 'Green Rosette').

 

So it might be good idea, but I reckon pretty much only optional, to label selfed plants as {A. whatever x self} because of the increased homozygous nature of the genome and the associated likely reduced vigour & altered phenotypes that selfing characteristically brings with it; reserving the use of {A. whatever x A. whatever} for when parents are genetically distinct individuals and never using {A. whatever F1} because (not to be too childish about it) that's just stupid.

 

In any case I believe that when it comes to plant labels the more information (provenance, origin, pedigree etc.) the better provided it is clear, concise and accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 F

Ada, I'm not taking it personal. I justtry to make clear how things are. I don't have to like it but I do have to give the best information I got As for crapy descriptons: The ICPS (or any other off

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 reg

Hi there,

in the past weeks, I contacted many doctors and profs from the biological faculties of several universities here in germany.
I thought: "If everyone knows the answer, he (or she) has to be a high decorated member of a universitys faculty". - I was wrong.
Everyone of them answered: "That´s not my field of activity."

Some of them advised me to contact the botanical gardens - and I did, with the same result. No,... it was not exactly the same.

They answered: "We only have wild plants here and cannot help you with labeling your cultivated ones".
 

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.


The only useable hint was a link to the so called 'ICNCP' ('International Code for Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants'), a scientific code, published by the ISHS (International Society for Horticultural Science) on 240 pages...
So, there is a solution, and it´s written down there, but I´m not willing to buy and/or read it.

So this time, I´m trying to find and contact someone of the authors of the ICNCP or members of the ISHS, who has the ability and is in the mood to answer these questions.

 

Keep you´re fingers crossed - I`m working on it.
 

Also there isn't a Stone County in Alabama, is there?
So no plant should be labelled "Sarracenia alata Stone County Alabama" selfed or otherwise.


:sarcastic_hand:
 
Best regards,
Christian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the great comments. There is still not 100 % consensus but I think it´s ok too say most of you feel it´s necessary to write something on the label if the plant is selfed.

The absence of any rules does´t mean that everybody can and should do what ever he want. For me it seems to be absolutely necessary to find a consent in how to label our plants.The onliest way too avoiding a disaster.

I absolutely agree with Ordovic: "In any case I believe that when it comes to plant labels the more information (provenance, origin, pedigree etc.) the better provided it is clear, concise and accurate.

Are there any further meanings or hints?

Alexander

 

PS: For me there is a Stone County in Alabama.  :Laie_97: 

Edited by fischermans
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

but I think it´s ok too say most of you feel it´s necessary to write something on the label if the plant is selfed.

???

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

Antho-free plants are just antho-free plants and when selfed are definitely antho-free so no "selfed" appellation is required (although see below), unless specific clones are involved again or you want to make a point of guaranteeing for someone else that seeds will be of  antho-free plants.

 

Unless a named location plant has an accession code (MK-RG5) it's almost pointless calling it {S. rubra ssp. gulfensis [Yellow River,FL] x S. rubra ssp. gulfensis [Yellow River,FL]} since this is also true of the parent plant(s). I will however say this is misleading labelling for selfed plants as it implies a cross between two clones from the same place.

 

 

----

 

 

The absence of any rules does´t mean that everybody can and should do what ever he want.

There are the rules: http://www.ishs.org/sci/icracpco.htm

 

 

----

 

For me there is a Stone County in Alabama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_in_Alabama :blum3:

 

Regards,

Christian

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I have  to concretize:

But I think it's ok to say most of you, except Fred G and VChr, feel it's necessary to write something on the label if the plant is selfed.

Hopefully we get any further comments and Ideas how to manage a system for the future.

And hopefully we don't get again and again the same angel of view from the same persons.

Alexander

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

i think, we have to distinguish between cultivated clones/cultivars and botanical names. If you cross a taxa with another plant from the same taxa the result is stil this taxa. That's part of the species concept. Cultivars have totally other definitions/rules.

 

I think, it should/can be used like that:

 

If i cross two different anthocyanin free S. alata i don't think i am doing something wrong if i call the offspring S. alata "anthochocyanin free" without adding anything. This is just what the offsprings will be like, an anthocyanin free S. alata.

 

If both parents have the same location data i can't see why it should be wrong not to add that information to the plant. That plant still only has genes from that population.

 

If both plants have different location information i obviously can't use any of them for the offspring. If i feel it's necessary or of importance i can add that information to the plants, but if i don't do it and just leave the location out it's not wrong.

 

If i have given both plants clone numbers, let's say A1 and A2, i can add that information (in any of the three above cases) if i feel it's of importance.

 

If i cross two species, let's say S. alata and S. leucophylla,  i have to use S. alata x leucophylla.

 

If self a cultivar, for example, S. 'Leah Wilkerson' i must not 't label the offspring S. 'Leah Wilkerson'. I have to call it S. 'Leah Wilkerson' F2, or S. 'Leah Wilkerson' x self. To make things even more complicated, if one of the offsprings is exactly(!) like S. 'Leah Wilkerson' i could even call it S. 'Leah Wilkerson'. A Cultivar, by definition, theoretically(!) does not need to be just one clone. But, practically you should not use the cultivar name for any offspring of a cultivar.

 

If i have numbered my clones(!!) i can't use that same number for selfed offspring. I should add "x self" in that case.

 

If i have two different numberes clones of S. leucophylla (no matter what information i have besides the speices name), let's say L1 and L2, and i cross these two plants i can call the offspring just S. leucophylla if i want to. I can't see anything wrong with that. If it is important to me i can also add L1 x L2.

 

Please correct me if anything of the above is wrong.

 

Christian

 

Btw.: The Stone County you are referring to is in Mississippi, to the best of my knowledge there is no Stone County in Alabama.

Edited by Christian
Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is second generation raised in cultivation, it is not natural genotype anymore.

I'm very curious. How did that happen? If anything, selfing produces a genome only from that location...

Wouldn't a selfed seed selfed at the location be exactly the same?

Edited by Dave Evans
Link to post
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)

You'll have to do several generations for there to be any real affect. Do keep in mind most of the "live or die scenarios" a given life form experiences have very little to do with the genetics that it inherited. Any changes from being in horticulture will be small and likely no more trouble for the plants to fix if they were placed back into wild locations than adjustments they made while in cultivation. It's not as though they stop evolving, nor can you erase 100,000's years worth of evolution with a couple generation in horticulture without expressly outcrossing the species and making endless hybrids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not talking about the evolution of Sarracenia, we are talking about location specifics that could be a fragile inter species mix.

If a number of seed is collected and grown on to maturity and then all of those plants are divided and then distributed imo they are location plants. If you grow the same plants to maturity and then keep crossing those plants together without any other species or forms from that location with their specific flowering times and all other factors there will likely be subtle changes.

If seed was collected a hundred years ago from a location and all plant grown and distributed and then selfed and then distributed and then passed on etc. eventually there could easily be more greenhouse grown "location" plants than at the location itself.

Alexander. I think maybe you should have just set a vote lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian, it´s great too hear all the arguments for write all informations on the plant sticker and against doing that.But I think one point is very important.It´s the possibility of inbreeding other pollen too the plant as the pollen we want too. And another point for me is the not existing disadvantage of writing everything on the plant sticker.

In the end and if we can not find any solution, a vote would not be the worst idea but I hope we get a few more people to write their meanings. 

Go for it . :-)

Edited by fischermans
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not talking about the evolution of Sarracenia, we are talking about location specifics that could be a fragile inter species mix.

If you grow the same plants to maturity and then keep crossing those plants together without any other species or forms from that location with their specific flowering times and all other factors there will likely be subtle changes.

Well, I'm referring to exactly those subtle changes as evolution.  Very little "evolving" will be happening to these plants, even through successive generations, and not enough for them to not to be considered good examples from such and such location.  You may end up with a slightly different genetic profile, but that is an example of the Founder's Effect more than evolutionary changes in the resulting progeny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not talking about the evolution of Sarracenia, we are talking about location specifics that could be a fragile inter species mix.

If a number of seed is collected and grown on to maturity and then all of those plants are divided and then distributed imo they are location plants. If you grow the same plants to maturity and then keep crossing those plants together without any other species or forms from that location with their specific flowering times and all other factors there will likely be subtle changes.

If seed was collected a hundred years ago from a location and all plant grown and distributed and then selfed and then distributed and then passed on etc. eventually there could easily be more greenhouse grown "location" plants than at the location itself.

Alexander. I think maybe you should have just set a vote lol.

 

Actually that's a very good point after all no-one would think of referring to the Irish Roscommom S. purpureas as being Canadian, but effectively that's what they would be if a lineage comprised of plants from one location (albeit very broadly defined in this case) were considered still belonging to that location. And I remember reading a paper once demonstrating the evolutionary shifts in a Swiss population to smaller but more numerous flowers; here then in a hundred years of presumed isolation significant differences have accrued to say the plants are not representative of their original location data (whatever it might be).

 

Adaptive changes are guaranteed to occur in the long term of any ex-situ conserved lineage/population of plants of a location which will render the assigned "location" ultimately meaningless. -The plants will represent not their origins completely but begin to represent the adaptation to the environment in which they now find themselves, that is to say horticulture and the inadvertant selection pressures experienced therein.

Even by selecting progeny for 'most alike' the 'originals' will exert unseen adaptive pressures on the generations as population begins to evolve appear the same as the natural population in an unnatural environment (probably requiring slightly different genetic expression to achieve the same phenotype in a different environment). The point being that natural selection exerts itself on very slight sometimes imperceptible differences that aren't necessarily life of death for the individuals but tell in the proportion decendents of subsequent generations compared to their peers. When it is life or death (why do some seeds not germinate? why do some seedlings not survive to reproduce? why do some mature plants succumb to pest and disease?) it is the least well adapted to the contemporary conditions that are disadvantaged and adaptive change in the gene pool can be rapid (relatively speaking).

 

So perhaps generations need to be kept track of when interbreeding a species/variety/form from a specific location and not label such infra-specific/varietal crossings as 100% legitimately of that location.

 

Unless you maintain a population clonally of course.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm referring to exactly those subtle changes as evolution.  Very little "evolving" will be happening to these plants, even through successive generations, and not enough for them to not to be considered good examples from such and such location.  You may end up with a slightly different genetic profile, but that is an example of the Founder's Effect more than evolutionary changes in the resulting progeny.

 

I disagree with you on this point. Again I refer you to the Swiss S. purpureas -I'll try and find the article.

 

Hmm -think it must have been this one. The bit about the flowers is at the end

 

Okay so it stresses the importance of the founder effect. But while such populations possess a collective genome whose alleles almost entirely represent those inherited from the parent population, they are skewed in one direction or another and novel alleles will have occured by mutation.

 

And another thing. There is also the risk of accidental contamination of pollen from other plants by insect vectors resulting in gene flow that would be less likely to have occurred in the wild.

 

Oh and yes I am just splitting hairs here.

Edited by Ordovic
Link to post
Share on other sites

IBut while such populations possess a collective genome whose alleles almost entirely represent those inherited from the parent population, they are skewed in one direction or another and novel alleles will have occured by mutation.

 

Oh and yes I am just splitting hairs here.

Well, that's my point... novel alleles keep happening without direction. Only after many successive generations will what is effectively genetic drift make a big difference to the point we should recognize them as being "different". When you visit a location many years later, the plants there will also have changed. Perhaps the climate has changed a bit and now the season is longer at that location, guess what? The plants will adapt via novel alleles via mutation. Even locations themselves change over time!

I also do not believe they in any way shape for form attached the change in the height on the flower to any genetic change. It may simply be an already "built in" range of expressions. However, I see no reason not to label those plants with their Swiss location information as we can connect it to Ontario anyway.

They discuss at length ideas about how purpurea deals with inbreeding depression. Which it deals with the same way whether it is located in New Jersey or in Switzerland. And completely in a different fashion than does S. flava. Their results for seed fitness matched very well to the results of a different study I read that compared the fitness of seed produced by a series of different kinds of crosses based on the distance of the plants in the field. As far as I can tell, the purpurea in Switzerland are behaving rather like the purpurea over here!

S. purpurea is indeed a rapid colonizer, which they mistook for being invasive. It just doesn't care about genetic bottle necks, unlike every other species in Sarracenia.

Edited by Dave Evans
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, someone wanted to know what I think about this,and while I haven't ploughed through all of this text I saw a couple of things that I thought I should respond to. In general I would say I mostly agree with Christian by the way.

 

Ok here goes nothing:

Generally speaking the term selfed is acceptable, though perhaps not elegant.

 

Basically what I do is that if I name all my crosses as Mother x Father as this is the clearest notation of what the plant actually is.

S. alabamensis with mother and father from two different locations is labeled as just what it is, S. alabamensis. It is not a hybrid so no reason to go for a mother x father notation. I do make a not of the locations it's parents came from if those are actual wild locations. The ONLY value of this is that it gives a rough idea of the gene pool of this plant and that is all. there is no real science value in it nor any real horticultural need.

 

If a plant is selfed so say an alabamensis from location X,  I label the plant alabamensis location X as the only genetic make up of this plant is pure location X. There is no need to say it is selved.

One might argue that a selfed plant can be weaker or has more change of mutations, but basically ANY plant that has been in cultivation for a long time will change a bit as a response to cultivation conditions, even if you use cuttings. I consider this small changes not relevant enough to have influence on naming.

Besides...how much do we really know about the "named locations"? Unless you collected it yourself or can backtrack to the person that did there is always a change of error as you have to trust the chain of people who had the material before you bought the plant to not make mistakes, be honest, etc.

 

Now we come to a special category, the cultivars. A cultivar is a selected plant from a group of plants and somebody took the trouble of naming that individual.

There is some misunderstanding about the idea that a cultivar can't be reproduced by seed. That is not true. Basically the code for naming cultivars says that if seeds from a cultivar display the character that resulted in the naming of that cultivar technically they are that cultivar.... so in a batch of 50 seedlings maybe 3 or 4 will technically be the cultivar and may be named so.

This is often not what the person that made the selection wants so he adds to the description something like "to maintain the character of this cultivar it needs to be reproduced a-sexually". The lawfullness of such a statement will the code actually says something different can be debated at length!

I won't do that here, I'll just say that following this request from the selector is considered the right thing to do and also that it gives a somewhat better change that the plant you buy will actually looked like the one you saw in somebodies greenhouse.

So, if you have a cultivar and you selfed it it is the correct thing to do to name it cultivar name + selfed. People will then know that it has the same genetic make up as the cultivar but that there is a large change that it will look slightly different. If they want to take that change, that is up to them...you made that change clear by naming it in this way.

 

Glancing over the things others wrote I would like to say a few more things:

 

First of all: it is NOT correct naming plants F1, etc. This kind of naming refers to a specific kind of breeding to get a homogenous crop in agriculture. Basically an F1 is a hybrid between TWO lines of inbreeding. So both mother and father are inbred, but they are NOT the same plant. So if a plant is mother and father it can't be an F1. Two different specimens of say 'Dixie lace'can produce an F1 but not just one plant that is selfed. The idea behind this is that you mass the best of the best trades together and then make a cross that will procuce ofspring that is very stable. 

 

Second: The Stone county discussion came by. There is NO Stone County in Alabama, it is in Mississippi. What likely happend is that someone found the plant in teh field and saw a sign saying Stone County....he or she wrote that down and added Alabama think that is where he/she was. Stone County actually lies on the border with Alabama so the error could have been meters or kilometers...no telling but it is a fact that the border between the states here is an artificial line. There is no topografy like roads, mountains or waterways that it follows so without a GPS...well basically a bog looks like a bog on both sides of an atrificial line...

 

Well, that is my 5 eurocents...Next topic :coffee:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we come to a special category, the cultivars. A cultivar is a selected plant from a group of plants and somebody took the trouble of naming that individual.

There is some misunderstanding about the idea that a cultivar can't be reproduced by seed. That is not true. Basically the code for naming cultivars says that if seeds from a cultivar display the character that resulted in the naming of that cultivar technically they are that cultivar.... so in a batch of 50 seedlings maybe 3 or 4 will technically be the cultivar and may be named so.

 

Sorry, I totally disagree with your statement...

Seeds taken from already cultivar plant and the resulted plants can't be named cultivar, because the raised plants ( x self) are unique by themselves and they can't have 100% the same characteristics as the parent cultivar plant. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Dimitar, but you don't disagree with me with that statement but with the international rules for naming cultivars. The rules say they are, IF the display whatever makes the cultivar special. Most people don't like it, it is probably not a good thing but it still is what the book says.

The link has been given several times on this forum so you can look it up if you want.

Unfortunatelly wishing it was different doesn't change the rules :whistle3:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules are fine but what are the proofs, Marcel?

 

Surely it will be interesting for me to see selfed plants taken from cultivar to have 100% the same characteristics as the parent.

If it is so, then to register cultivar is more than pointless cuz all taken seeds from it, then respectively plants and their variations automatically will be cultivars :) Then from those cultivars and their seeds the raised plants again will be new and many more cultivars, from them and their seeds again new and again new and again until endless....123456789765434567898765434567876 new x self cultivars  :)

Would all those have 100% the same characteristics as the parent since all are x self lol? 

Edited by dimitar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeds taken from already cultivar plant and the resulted plants can't be named cultivar, because the raised plants ( x self) are unique by themselves and they can't have 100% the same characteristics as the parent cultivar plant.

That is not true (or, better, that should not be true).

The problem is that we (carnivorous plants growers) have a completely distorted view of what should be registered as "cultivar".

Cultivar is meant to be "cultivated variety" (variety created by artificial selection), not "individual selected plant".

A "cultivar" should be a whole selection of plants that are selected for a particular homozygous character, and, as a consequence, every (note that "every", here, means truly a probability of 100%, they are homozygous) plant obtained from seed is going to show the same characteristic, and, of course, belong to the same cultivar.

It should work in the same ways as for natural varieties.

A plant shouldn't have the same genome to belong to the same cultivar, simply must show the same character of the parent plants, described in the cultivar description.

Of course this can't be applicated to the majority of the existing carnivorous plants cultivar, simply because they are not what a cultivar should be, they are just "selected and named individual plants", and so they must be propagated asexually to mantain the character and hence the name.

 

Creating new cultivars is not as easy as registering a "particular plant" as we are used to do now, you should firstly select pure homozygous lines, that means years of work (and a lot of space...).

Edited by .Pico.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Following your logic if I cross two location plants for example: Cephalotus Two Peoples Bay x Coal Mine Beach or Northcliffe x French Mans Bay,  I will end up with pure location plant ? If so, to what location the resulted plant would belong? Since all 4 quoted location plants have different genes and characteristics.

How the resulted plant from this cross will have at one and the same time and will contain in itself 100% the genes and the characteristics from  Two Peoples Bay  and in the same time 100% the genes and the characteristics from Coal Mine Beach ?

 

Or if I cross tow cultivars Cephalotus 'Eden Black' x Cephalotus 'Hummers Giant'. How will u name all the resulted plants - cultivars ?

 

What do u think?  :smile:

Edited by dimitar
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cultivar is meant to be "cultivated variety" (variety created by artificial selection), not "individual selected plant".
That sums it up nicely.There are a number of CPs that some believe should never have been given cultivar status.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Following your logic if I cross two location plants for example: Cephalotus Two Peoples Bay x Coal Mine Beach or Northcliffe x French Mans Bay,  I will end up with pure location plant ? If so, to what location the resulted plant would belong? Since all 4 quoted location plants have different genes and characteristics.

How the resulted plant from this cross will have at one and the same time and will contain in itself 100% the genes and the characteristics from  Two Peoples Bay  and in the same time 100% the genes and the characteristics from Coal Mine Beach ?

 

Or if I cross tow cultivars Cephalotus 'Eden Black' x Cephalotus 'Hummers Giant'. How will u name all the resulted plants - cultivars ?

 

What do u think?  :smile:

 

Just write "typical" on all the labels Dimi  :laugh1:

Link to post
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.