Naming of selfed Sarracenias


Recommended Posts

In this case, I think you can call it 'plant from the northern hemisphere'. If this is reasonable, is another question.

But if you cross two plants from different counties in Florida, I think, it's OK to lable it 'plant from Florida'.

That makes sense to me... If you're going to generalize to the point of the words conveying no information, then just drop the location data. Northern hemisphere literally means nothing in this context. The word "Sarracenia" already means "North American endemic genus".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once a plant is out of it's location its lineage is no longer of a location as it is in cultivation and can no longer be considered a location plant.

You don't mean like this, but this is a backward promotion of digging plants. Seriously, if you mean to be this strenuous with regard to applying location information, then the only plants with said location data are those still growing at said location. Any plant and or seed removed from said location is no longer at that location and has to be given new location information. But what does "Dave's (or Dan's or Hort's) greenhouse" mean what to anyone?

As if I have stopped being German, Irish and Czech because I was born in New Jersey. I believe you're making a wholly illogical conclusion to a naturally occurring system of blurriness. Applying location data by where the gametes where formed is just putting too much importance on it. Puritanical.

Edited by Dave Evans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am off this conversation, when you accuse me of making a backward promotion of digging up plants and missing points.

I have made my opinions and so have others and it is up to people to draw what conclusions they wish.

Ian.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok  Here's my thoughts.

 

Take 1 female born in Italy

Then take 1 male born in Germany

They both move to the UK, meet and start a family

Their child (the offspring) is born in the UK.

 

The mother will remain Italian as she was born in Italy

The father will remain German as he was born in Germany

But the child (offspring) will always be British as he/she was born in the UK.

The birth certificate for the child will contain the parents original birth place (location data) but the childs will always be UK British.

 

The same will be for plants.

The parent plants coming from what ever location they come from will always remain as that location.....but their offspring will become a cross of the location plants so they should not become a location plant but instead carry the location data along with the parent data in the cross as reference to the parents...... (the birth certificate)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok  Here's my thoughts.

 

Take 1 female born in Italy

Then take 1 male born in Germany

They both move to the UK, meet and start a family

Their child (the offspring) is born in the UK.

 

The mother will remain Italian as she was born in Italy

The father will remain German as he was born in Germany

But the child (offspring) will always be British as he/she was born in the UK.

The birth certificate for the child will contain the parents original birth place (location data) but the childs will always be UK British.

 

The same will be for plants.

The parent plants coming from what ever location they come from will always remain as that location.....but their offspring will become a cross of the location plants so they should not become a location plant but instead carry the location data along with the parent data in the cross as reference to the parents...... (the birth certificate)

 

 

 

In the wild to get natural cross from two or more Cephalotus locations plants is impossible and the chance this to happen is 0%. There is no way they could cross in the field. The location sites are too far apart from each other, so the only way possible to do in cultivation.

 

However,  If I cross two Australian locations plants at home here in Bulgaria in my city Plovidiv, for example Coal Mine beach x Two Peoples Bay,  this doesn't make the resulted cross plants Bulgarians, with location Plovdiv where I have made this cross :smile:

 

The only correct way which I see is to name them  location A x location B, but also would make sure people to know it is horticultural cross.

Edited by dimitar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok  Here's my thoughts.

 

Take 1 female born in Italy

Then take 1 male born in Germany

They both move to the UK, meet and start a family

Their child (the offspring) is born in the UK.

 

The mother will remain Italian as she was born in Italy

The father will remain German as he was born in Germany

But the child (offspring) will always be British as he/she was born in the UK.

The birth certificate for the child will contain the parents original birth place (location data) but the childs will always be UK British.

 

... yes, but they all remain Europeans.

By the way, this regulation does not fit for all countries.

In some countries you get the mothers and somewhere else the fathers nationality for your "offspring".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Once a plant is bred away from its natural location, there is no reason that the selected offspring would neccesarily look like the plants back in the original location. So three, four or five generations on does it still make sense to label my S. pupureas as roscommon or indeed some place in canada or wherever they originally came from, when they may look quite different.. Clearly not.

Natural selection continues to happen even if the selection is unnatural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meizwang said "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."

 

I have selfed S. Adrian Slack and I got an exceptionally low rate of seed germination (only 20%) and all the seedlings but one were very weak. This reduced fitness of its selfed offspring might suggest that S. Adrian Slack would already be a selfed plant. So the remark of Meizwang makes sense.

 

Nevertheless this crossing was worth to do, because the single strong seedling (now 10 cm) seems exceptionally promising...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Location does not guarantee what a plant will look like. It notates the genetic pool from which the plant originates.Even after 10 generations that genetic make-up will still be valid, provided you don't corrupt it with foreign input ( this is not based on UKIP policy in any way).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see the point of having named locations if the plants are just like any other mix of the same species. For example, N. maxima 'lake poso' plants tend to be physcally different from other maximas, but if after three or more generations of cultivation they were selcted to be N. maxima 'easy to grow in my greenhouse' it would not still make sense to call them 'Lake Poso'.

From a consevation point of view recording all the origins might make some knd of sense in an ideal world but realistically if theyre indistuinguishable from othe populations whats the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still cant help thinking cloning plants from known locations (ie taking cuttings) is more valid than raising stuff from seed. I dont personally believe plants grown from seed in cultivation should receve the location tag of the parent plant. Too much stray pollen and human error involved as well as the inevitable unconscious natural selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The natural selection of the better clones within a named location group is no problem at all as the gene pool is the same.

Do you know that there's at least one ***** member of this forum who actually has named location Liverworts?

 

***** chose any of the following options - strange; unusual, odd, curious, peculiar, funny, bizarre, weird, uncanny, ,unexpected, unfamiliar, abnormal, atypical, anomalous, untypical,different, out of the ordinary,  extraordinary,remarkable, puzzling, mystifying, mysterious, perplexing, baffling,unaccountable, inexplicable, incongruous, uncommon, irregular,singular,  aberrant, freakish, surreal; suspicious,dubious, questionable; eerie, unnatural; outré; unco; informal; fishy; creepy; spooky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking laterally for the moment i can think of several examples in the animal kingdom where breeding in captivity has led to some captive populations no longer being capable of breeding in the wild. So even though the gene pool may be the same, something has been lost allong the way.

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.

 Share