Breeding discussion

[XyZ]

I think we lost XyZ.

~Hey Slaythe, i think this thread is more or less over as far as i have to tell about my initial point, which was just one (the "ibl can't be f-anything") Ghead needed a whole weekend to think about it and correct that part ...but unfortunately he made some other mistakes during this process... so i had to explain and explain till he started with the idiot & dumbass attacks (which reminds of a child in a lo0sy situation

lol, Xyz, you really are a dumbass, eh... If a line is not homozygous for most traits, then it is not an inbred line... A line that is only stable for one or two traits is not an inbred line... It may be a line that has been inbred, but if it doesn't breed true then it is not an ibl. True for one or two traits is NOT true breeding... lmao... This is the problem, I think... you have no understanding of what really constitutes an true breeding line. If the line does not breed true it is not an IBL, Get it?? Just because some inbreeding has taken place does not mean that there is an inbred ine... If it won't breed true, then where's the line, eh? you just have a semi-stable F'whatever generation' hybrid, not an IBL. Get an education and stop using the same idiotic 'sour milk' phrase... Feel free to play student here on the forums and in the rest of life... you've OBVIOUSLY got alot to learn, though your head may be to thick for reason to creep in.

Hint... documenting your position, and backing yourself up with sources would give you a bit more credibility... but when I've got the academic and scientific communities to support my side of the argument, and all you have is the phrase 'sour milk' and an imagination of how things should work... Hmmmmm....

From this post it's 0bvious that he never inbred a line... he is just confusing him-self (and maybe some others "newbs" on this subject ) with points that should be clear and not a matter of discussion. also, he is so much talkin'about corn and mathematical theory, while my posts are based on practical cannabis examples (ie. skunk, deep chunk, blueberry...) He is talkin like a every ibl should be similar like "clones-in-seed" and that's an indication that his practice is limited as far as making an ibl.

my berry (F5) is much similar to the original blueberry (F4), which means that this line is well-stabilized for most traits already at F4... they all give dense flowers with the fine berry flavor, medium-stretch, strong but hollow stems, similar flowering period (with a 1 week harvest window), purple/blue colors...etc... but of course you get some phenotypic difference - some plants are producing a bit deeper purple on the leaves, others on the calyxes. some have medium and some large calyxes... some plants give a regular bud structure while others tend to make a few foxtails at the end.... but the overall expression is much the same and the smoke is relatively equal in the finished product.

same with the skunk... it's a very true-breeding ibl, this doesn't mean that all plants are the same though. in fact, a difference can be noticed already on a smal scale; about 1 from 15 skunk females will be a bit different in the smell/taste (more fruity rather than skunky) but they all still share most of the traits where Sam was working on (high yield with short flowering and more sativa effects Also the deep chunk (a pure afghani-line, never hybridized) is showing some diversity in late flowering, some are more resinous and more deep flavorful than others ...and that's how nature works... inbreeding will generally increase homozygousity but you can never get 2 seeds that will be absolutely identical in the genetic structure. total uniformity (as far as human perception is possible) in the plant phenotype, will be only if crossing 2 unrelated lines, which are more or less homozygous for all traits (ie. pure-lines). when starting the inbreeding of a true F1 hybrid, than the genetic engine will never stop... and it's not possible to create a totally-stable line at F4 ...but anyway you can get a very nice and well-stable line with just little difference beetwen the plants... if lucky, already the F3 can appear much stable if chosing the right parent combination (finding the "right" parents is an other story - this is where all the art of selection actually comes into the game

i don't care for rez and his doggy words ...why should i care for a late milkman who brings nothing but sour~milk?

*some shots to make the thread more colorful :wink:

...original blueberry that was grown under the sun






& some macros from my "berry-ibl" (bbF5)

lot's of more pics in my gallery (also deep chunk, skunk/chunk and some blue crosses, among others...have fun

happy growing folk ...and to quote the old words from esbe... ~spread the good beans!

 

[XyZ]

Well,spanish soldiers brought seeds from both Afghanistan and Lebanon to Spain.. other individuals,not troops,too...so what´s the deal??
I have plenty,plenty...

now that's nearly enough for making some of the best oils on this planet

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Xyz still confused... I never recanted anything I said brother... you are wrong.
inbred lines can only be called F-anything incorrectly... Except in one very specific circumstance...
Skunk was never F-anything, being a three way hybrid, btw...
BTW... seem stable, and breeding true is a big difference... the difference in an inbred line or not in fact...
just because you can come up with a semi-uniform F3 generation doean't by any stretch make them true breeding and therefore NOT an inbred line...
You need to stop misleading yourself and the newbs. and you're still a dumbass. and you still can't come up with any legitimate sources that support your opinion over the facts I've presented.

I was just thinking about what an intelligent direction this thread and gone in, and then you showed back up and scored one more big point for ignorance...
Nice one, lol..

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

From this post it's 0bvious that he never inbred a line... he is just confusing him-self (and maybe some others "newbs" on this subject ) with points that should be clear and not a matter of discussion. also, he is so much talkin'about corn and mathematical theory, while my posts are based on practical cannabis examples (ie. skunk, deep chunk, blueberry...) He is talkin like a every ibl should be similar like "clones-in-seed" and that's an indication that his practice is limited as far as making an ibl.

It's obvious that you've never made an ibl either... lol... I have lines that I am inbreeding, but I won't release them until I'm satisfies they breed true... People want me to, and would buy up any I sent in for sale, but my standards won't let me...
You think you've made them, it seems... I'm in no way acting like an ibl should be clones in seed... that's just stupid... I never implied any such thing... I did say that according to the REAL definition of an inbred line, they MUST be relatively true breeding... this is not for one or two traits... I've been growing and breeding cannabis for almost 20 years, and most definately am speaking from experience... I also have worked in the field hybridizing corn... Big deal... Are you implying that cannabis breeding, and labeling should not be held to as high a standard as corn is?? It sure does seem so...

Of course I don't think breeding should be done strictly 'by the numbers', and anyone who is willing to research the many hundreds of words I've written here on the subject, one would clearly see that I think intuition and art are Very important. However, to dent that there is a science to the art seems half-blind to me.

I can see and understand your argument very well.... your principles aren't that far wrong, but the language you use makes you sound very ignorant.

my berry (F5) is much similar to the original blueberry (F4), which means that this line is well-stabilized for most traits already at F4... they all give dense flowers with the fine berry flavor, medium-stretch, strong but hollow stems, similar flowering period (with a 1 week harvest window), purple/blue colors...etc... but of course you get some phenotypic difference - some plants are producing a bit deeper purple on the leaves, others on the calyxes. some have medium and some large calyxes... some plants give a regular bud structure while others tend to make a few foxtails at the end.... but the overall expression is much the same and the smoke is relatively equal in the finished product.

sound like alot of variation for an ibl... more like what I get from polyhybrids... lol... guess we can't all have the same standards for our work, eh?

same with the skunk... it's a very true-breeding ibl, this doesn't mean that all plants are the same though. in fact, a difference can be noticed already on a smal scale; about 1 from 15 skunk females will be a bit different in the smell/taste (more fruity rather than skunky) but they all still share most of the traits where Sam was working on (high yield with short flowering and more sativa effects Also the deep chunk (a pure afghani-line, never hybridized) is showing some diversity in late flowering, some are more resinous and more deep flavorful than others ...and that's how nature works... inbreeding will generally increase homozygousity but you can never get 2 seeds that will be absolutely identical in the genetic structure. total uniformity (as far as human perception is possible) in the plant phenotype, will be only if crossing 2 unrelated lines, which are more or less homozygous for all traits (ie. pure-lines). when starting the inbreeding of a true F1 hybrid, than the genetic engine will never stop... and it's not possible to create a totally-stable line at F4 ...but anyway you can get a very nice and well-stable line with just little difference beetwen the plants... if lucky, already the F3 can appear much stable if chosing the right parent combination (finding the "right" parents is an other story - this is where all the art of selection actually comes into the game

Exactly my point... Skunk is a good example of a created ibl... breeds true with a low percentage of drastic phenotypical differences. Deep Chunk the same... relatively true breeding...

In Fact... both of your examples prove MY point very well, and fit exactly into the definition of ibl that I provided... YOUR 'berry' doesn't from the description you provided.

Quite Obviously no two seeds will grow the exact same plant, and the fact that you actually thought I was trying to say any different only accents the depth of your misunderstanding.

 

[Guest]

Grat3fulh3ad :

What you say makes perfect sense to me. I've never bred anything. However, I have taken part in a number of scientific studies in the health care field. And so this is my take on this ongoing debate:

If one is "breeding" just to make seeds and have fun seeing what the outcome is, and NOT for commercial purposes...then terminology, how one selects, how one documents, blah, blah are important only to that person alone.

However, if one is breeding to achieve an outcome that they can subsequently "publish", or collaborate with another breeder, or for any other purpose where good documentation is required...THEN using standard terminology is critically important IMO.

pedro

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Grat3fulh3ad :

What you say makes perfect sense to me. I've never bred anything. However, I have taken part in a number of scientific studies in the health care field. And so this is my take on this ongoing debate:

If one is "breeding" just to make seeds and have fun seeing what the outcome is, and NOT for commercial purposes...then terminology, how one selects, how one documents, blah, blah are important only to that person alone.

However, if one is breeding to achieve an outcome that they can subsequently "publish", or collaborate with another breeder, or for any other purpose where good documentation is required...THEN using standard terminology is critically important IMO.

pedro

Exactly my point, pedro... and here in this community, where we're all attempting to share experiences and ideas, if we have 15 different terms being used 20 different ways and there is no standard, then there is in reality nothing but miscommunication going on...

If cannabis is ever going to be legalized and legitimized , and properly thoroughly researched by the scientific community, then won't all the same terms and conventions already in common use in agriculture and botany need to apply with the same meanings?



One more thing to XyZ... If the uniformity of a particular generation is to be the benchmark by which you judge whether or not the line is sufficiently inbred, I find it odd that the most uniform batch of seeds one can grow out are F1 hybrids?

The benchmark of an inbred line is that it is relatively true breeding.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Ok... been thinking about alot of the post here which are 'off topic' according to XyZ, but fit into a thread titled 'breeding discussion' quite well...

In my mind...
The 'math' of breeding is only really useful in estimating probabilities and in communicating results.

The majority of breeding knowledge has to come from experience... your own, or shared experiences of others... Since most of us have no genetics lab, breeding by cataloguing genotype and mapping out inheritance probability is not really possible...
Breeding by cataloguing phenotype and mapping out the inheritance probabilities seems, to me, boring and technical and not worth doing...
That leaves, what I like to think of as breeding by inspiration and breeding by intuition... Breeding by intuition I use to describe those who seem to have an innate sense of what plants will mesh together well... Breeding by inspiration is when one comes across a plant which is so outstanding it begs to be bred, or inspires one to search for a suitable partner...

The art of breeding supersedes the science in overall importance, imho, but by the same token, the science of the thing is very important if we are to be able to effectively communicate the results of our intuitions and inspirations. And the only way for us to benefit from the experiences of others, is if those others communicate those results in a standard way.

It doesn't hurt anything, in fact on some levels it helps, to have a system of nomenclature unique to cannabis. However, as the legitimacy of cannabis as medicine continues to be proven, and the mainstream scientific community delves more into researching the plant, don't we need to know how to speak their language as well as ours?

 

[GMT]

SO what were the conclusions here?
Is an IL ( as we now know to be the correct term for an in bred line) one that gives the same variability in the offspring as can be seen in the parental generation, or one in which the offspring are similar within reason?
Did the issue of whether selfed plants should be called F2s or S1s get cleared up?
Is Reeferman simply wrong to label plants that he sells F7s?

 

[Guest]

Grat3fulh3ad


"...The art of breeding supersedes the science in overall importance, imho, but by the same token, the science of the thing is very important if we are to be able to effectively communicate the results of our intuitions and inspirations. And the only way for us to benefit from the experiences of others, is if those others communicate those results in a standard way.

It doesn't hurt anything, in fact on some levels it helps, to have a system of nomenclature unique to cannabis. However, as the legitimacy of cannabis as medicine continues to be proven, and the mainstream scientific community delves more into researching the plant, don't we need to know how to speak their language as well as ours?"

Hey G!

Very well put. I don't understand why anyone has trouble understanding those two paragraphs.

As I said, I have never bred anything, but I believe I understand "intuitively" what you mean. I've read up some on some of the good cannabis breeders like Sam Skunkman, DJ Short, Shantibaba, and others. They ALL have at least one thing in common. They all say "selection" is what it is all about. And IMHO, the skill involved with selection is something top breeders have, or they don't have. That's the "art" involved with breeding. Some folks just "know" which phenotypes will produce what they want.

And I don't know who that "ego" remark above was directed at. I hope it wasn't you. If it was, that's sad. Maybe it's the "technician" in me. But I see exactly your point. Some people have trouble with facts and logic or what?

I also believe that many of these so-called "miscommunications"(by US posters) on the forums here are a direct result of an education system that has gone to hell in the USA. It seems that teaching proper English usage, syntax, etc. has disappeared in the US. Critical thinking and logical analysis are not in vogue with the ruling classes in US primary schools(K-12).

ramble ramble

Grat3fulh3ad....anyway I'd like to see more discussion of breeding...even if I can't contribute. I like learning about stuff like that.

pedro

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

SO what were the conclusions here?
Is an IL ( as we now know to be the correct term for an in bred line) one that gives the same variability in the offspring as can be seen in the parental generation, or one in which the offspring are similar within reason?

"S1s" from a hybrid will produce variable offspring exactly like a sibling cross. "S1s from inbred lines will produce fairly true.

Did the issue of whether selfed plants should be called F2s or S1s get cleared up?

I can show you plenty of sources where botanist self pollenate an f1 hybrid plant and lable the progeny as F2. I have never seen a botanist refer to anything as an S1.
**EDIT** with that being said I do not think it hurts one bit to call them S1s, as long as it is understood that S1 does not always mean a copy of the mother
( It could be a copy of one of the grandparents, or somewhere in between)
and not all "S1s" come from F1 hybrids, and are therefore not true F2s, as well. So, what you should properly call a self pollenated generation would really depend on what you should properly call the parent.**/edit**

Is Reeferman simply wrong to label plants that he sells F7s?

It depends. If they are the 6th filial generation after an F1 hybrid, and they do not yet breed true enough to call an inbred line, they are most definitely F7s... Otherwise, yes he is simply incorrect in his labeling.

 

[GMT]

Right thanks, that makes sense, I wont start the whole health of S1s discussion here, but I suppose the best label for what I have so far read "S1s" would be selfed F# or selfed IL, depending on the amount of change each generation is still making. I guess that means that no seeds can be called ILs without the parent line already being accepted as ILs or until after thier offspring has also been tested.

 

[Charles Xavier]

Greetings


British Hempire:

Thank you for your well articulated comments; I believe we are on form in agreement.

Simply for the sake of absolute clarity...science does not necessarily mean academic, rather it is a thorough and totally systematic approach to compiling, organizing and implementing information (theoretically and/or practically) on any given subject.

Your breeding project proves (will prove) the Mendelian Law of Inheritance and the established nomenclature that accompanies (explains) it. One does not need to be familiar with the accepted in order to validate it; that's why it's a Law...it applies to every single case.

We're not invoking invention; we're discussing discovery.

Let me finally add my well-wishes for the success of your breeding endeavours and a request: please keep sharing what you have learned.



GMT:

Allow me this opportunity to offer some brief explanation.

I also believed that a selfed plant was an S1 rather than an F2 as it has been claimed repeatedly in this thread....GMT

The designate S1 is an informal one meaning the first generation of progeny resultant from self-pollination. The actual term is F1 or rather (for complete accuracy) f1.

Fn - designation given to the Filial generation derived from crossing two distinct ‘P’ lines i.e. a true hybrid.

fn - designation given the filial generation for the purpose of tracking; e.g. the first generation of captive bred fish derived from wild-caught specimens is deemed f1.

Self pollination can be made to occur at any time and so the f1 (S1) can be any generation within the population. To circumvent confusion it is generally accepted: if self-pollination was purposeful then the specimen in question is automatically considered P1 so that the ‘f’ designation can follow sequentially.

P1 x P2 = F1
F1 x F1 = F2
F2 x F2 = F3
F3 x F3 self = F4

or noted:
F3 x F3 self = F4f1 i.e. Fn x Fn self = F(n+1)f1

or informally:
F3 x F3 self = S1 (note: in this instance, ‘S1’ is neither actually nor statistically F2)

or standard:
P1 x P1= f1 (note: the inference of self pollination; less conventional but more descriptive and thus accepted is Fn x Fn = f1)

Note: In a recent thread - Genetic differences between an IBL and S1- I did not attempt to make this distinction because there are contextual clues as to whether an uppercase or lowercase letter 'F' is appropriate and since the language on forums tend to be less formal, an attempt was being made not to confound the issue too much. Given that the implied point of this thread is accuracy in nomenclature, I deemed it prudent to make the distinction here.

Note: The notation should be subscripted (I am not well familiar enough with this program in order to do it here; mea culpa).

I know that Reeferman for one is selling F7s, which according your your post, I would take to mean an "IL" (I want to get this right) which is still showing variability. Also from your post, I would gather that a backcross is irrelevant when refering to an IL as no new genetic information has been introduced. Even though it has its own prefix of IBL....GMT

Reeferman names his plants F7 presumably because he is aware of their pedigree and F7 is accurate....seven (7) generations of successive filial breeding from the P1.

Note: I used 'pedigree' because after five (5) generations of filial breeding a line is considered inbred. If not inbred the correct term would be 'lineage'.

Being considered an inbred line has no bearing on "variability"... the only true criteria is that the breeding population is isolated and intact for at least five (5) generations.

To the contrary; a Backcross is very relevant when describing an inbred line. As mentioned an Inbred Backcrossed Line (IBL) is set after three (3) generations; the reason: traits from only one specimen are selected for versus the hybridizing of traits from two specimens. As far as breeding is concerned, the two terms describe very different strategies and outcomes

On a side note: Having spoken to Tom Hill in chat, he used plants which exhibited differing traits when creating his DC IL rather than those which showed the same traits, whereas in this thread it has been indicated that plants with the same traits must be used in order to create a stable IL....GMT

The term 'stable' is the modifier. (Obviously) There is a difference between an 'IL' and a 'stable IL'; they are both inbred...one breeds true; the other, not necessarily so.

...each generation of DC was an introduction of new genetic material due to the differences in plants selected from the same generation. Now ok these genetic diferences will be small, but each generation will contain new mutations....GMT

Pardon me:
…each filial generation of Deep Chunk was an introduction of different genetic coding due to the differences in plants selected for inbreeding. Now, these genetic variations may be small, even so, each generation will likely contain new permutations.

This would suggest to me that the number of generations of IL will have an effect upon the plants that are grown, and therefore if I see a generation of (DC for example) that I wanted, I would be wise not to just look for DC IL, but which generation of DC IL the example I wished to replicate was [and purchase seeds from the previous generation, make the appropriate selections, create the ‘working generation’ and further select from there (depending); statistically one has a greater chance of reproducing (exactly) a desired specimen from selected crosses from the previous generation (Fn-1), than of finding another (same) specimen in the shared filial generation (Fn)…if one is dealing with an inbred line that does not breed true for all desired traits.] To me this would indicate that simply using the IL suffix would be insufficient for me to go shopping with....GMT

Precisely and the illustrated reason why the term 'IL' is rarely used (not pertinent) as a descriptor unless these requisites are demonstrably met:

1) The line breeds true.
2) There is an established catalogue of described traits for which it breeds true.

In any case, thorough research and keen observation are indispensable to great selection; and great selection is what good breeding is all about.

Sincerely,
Charles.

p.s All squares are parallelograms, but not all parallelograms are squares (Euclidean speaking, of course).

C.X.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Charles,

The progeny of a F1 hybrid self fertilization is not an f1 it is an F2.
The progeny of an IL self fertilization is an IL still, no?

Thanks for bringing up the distinction of "F" vs "f"... had I originally said that an ibl can't really be an f-anything instead of F-anything then XyZ would have had a point.
And I only outlined one case where S1s are actually f2s, but for breeding purposed the progeny of hybrid or polyhybrid that are self fertilized are usually as variable as an F2 generation. I am well aware that not all S1s are F2s and pointed out another case where they are not. The important point in the S1 discussion is that S1 is an informal term and all S1s are more accurately something else.

I have to take exception with your statement about the only true criteria for an inbred line is to have been an isolated population for 5 generations. The standard definition as accepted by the patent office when reviewing new corn line patent applications clearly says relatively true breeding as the foremost criteria, then goes on to add that at least 5 generations or equivalent selected back crosses are criteria as well.

Also, the 3 back cross to ibl is not right. 'Cubing, a la Cindy99' as a primary breeding strategy is faulty. This has been demonstrated time and time again. Back crosses are an important tool, but not a magic bullet.

I like the last point you make about inbred lines as well...
"'IL' is rarely used (not pertinent) as a descriptor unless these requisites are demonstrably met:

1) The line breeds true.
2) There is an established catalogue of described traits for which it breeds true"

 

[GMT]

Thanks Charles, that's the first time I've been made aware of a difference between F and f, I had previously assumed that to be at the discression of the typist. I love the addition of the latin inserts and references to sets and subsets within Euclid's world too.

So, in future decendants of a selfed F3 generation, once the F4f1 generation are also inbred, would that then make the next generation F4f1F2's etc.? Also, to be an IL, are siblings the only family members that qualify? ie. would there be a specific notation to demonstrate that at an F3 stage, 4 plants were selected to produce 2 separte F4 groups, and then one of each of the F4 groups were selected and bred together to create ? F5s, IL seeds, I know they wouldn't be F1s again but wondered if there was a special way to describe this as its something that I tend to do.

 

[Charles Xavier]

Greetings Grat3fulh3ad

Well met. I hope the New Year is providing sufficient interest so far; and that as it goes by, pleasant expectations are surpassed.

The progeny of a F1 hybrid self fertilization is not an f1 it is an F2....Grat3fulh3ad

Actually f1 is the correct term; given: (as stated) f1 can be any generation provided it is the result of self-pollination. In the above given example, f1 = F2.

The progeny of an IL self fertilization is an IL still, no?....Grat3fulh3ad

Yes; however is can also be accurately deemed f1...if the self-pollination was purposeful.
In this example f1 = IL.

...but for breeding purposed the progeny of hybrid or polyhybrid that are self fertilized are usually as variable as an F2 generation....Grat3fulh3ad

I've seen this bandied about on this forum, but it is not quite true.

Reason: In self-pollination, you are dealing with only one set of chromosomes and the variation of the F2 is dependant on the genotypes of both P specimens.

To make a strong corroboration between the two would be specious.

In most cases, if derived from the same population, a self-pollinated generation is more likely to show less variation than a cross-pollinated one of the same filial designation.

The notion of the similarity of variation is based upon the self-pollination of a 'simple true' F1 hybrid i.e. one that is heterozygous for all traits inherited from polar P lines.

Variation is not a constant.

The important point in the S1 discussion is that S1 is an informal term and all S1s are more accurately something else....Grat3fulh3ad

Agreed.

I have to take exception with your statement about the only true criteria for an inbred line is to have been an isolated population for 5 generations. The standard definition as accepted by the patent office when reviewing new corn line patent applications clearly says relatively true breeding as the foremost criteria, then goes on to add that at least 5 generations or equivalent selected back crosses are criteria as well....Grat3fulh3ad

That's the difference between Genetics and Commerce. The patent office is concerned with just that...establishing a marketable difference between what was and what is. In other words the definition was amended to meet imposed criteria. Inherently, Inbred Line only means a line that is inbred and five (5) generations is deemed the standard.

Also, the 3 back cross to ibl is not right. 'Cubing, a la Cindy99' as a primary breeding strategy is faulty. This has been demonstrated time and time again. Back crosses are an important tool, but not a magic bullet....Grat3fulh3ad

I attributed nothing magical to the process of backcrossing. 'Cubing' will not likely produce a stable line, if the specimen being backcrossed is not in itself stable i.e. true breeding specimens when backcrossed...produce true breeding progeny; it is solely dependant on the P line and the subsequent selections made.

Regardless of stability, backcrossing is a type of inbreeding; an Inbred Backcrossed Line is considered standard after three (3) generations; I suspect this fact, is what triggered the 'cubing' idea; unfortunately, it appears as if the common error of equating 'inbred' with 'true breeding' was made by the creators of Cinderella 99.

Is original Cinderella 99 true breeding?
By all given accounts, no.

Is original Cinderella 99 inbred?
If the story of its creation is to be believed, yes.

I like the last point you make about inbred lines as well....Grat3fulh3ad

My last point was to say: That's why you usually only find 'IL' as a descriptor in places like patent offices.

Sincerely,
Charles.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Charles... Not true about the varation... the variation in the F2 genetation comes from recombining the heterozygous alleles.

The simplest example, using one allele...
Cross P1 (AA) and P2(aa) and 100% of the F1 hybrids will have (Aa).
Cross two of the (Aa) with each other and you will get a variant population with 25%(AA) 50% (Aa) and 25%(aa).
Wether the F1s are siblings or a self pollination.
The F2 is not dependent on ant variation between F1s, in fact it is the thing that makes the F1s most alike that causes the variation in the F2 generation.

Also, f1 is a reference to the progeny of any two parents, so of course all S1s are f1s. But in all reality, ALL f1's could also be named something more specific. You yourself already said that the 'f' is only a tracking designation. In the example I gave F2 is more specific than f1, though both are accurate.

You'll have to provide me a source to prove your less stringent definition of inbred line is more accurate than the one most widely accepted in agricultural circles. I provide sources to back up the definition I give, which most assuredly includes stability.

"true breeding specimens when backcrossed...produce true breeding progeny"
That's been my point all along... And hybrids do not produce true breeding progeny, 'selfed' or no.

And on your last point.... Thats why the designation 'inbred line' does not apply to every line that has been inbred. That's why you don't see it outside of commerce. Things have to be sold accurately, so inbred line had to be defined. If inbred line is simply a designation of how long it has been inbred, Show me the documentation. Otherwise, I'll use the commonly accepted definition which is most applicable to what I do and maintaining integrity in the field.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I can start citing papers any time you are ready...
In fact there is a paper in inheritance of chemical phenotype in cannabis, in which the botanists select hybrid specimins, self pollenate, and call the progeny the F2 generation.
They then do the same thing from the F2 generation... select females, self pollenate them, and label their offspring F3s.
I'll go dig up my citations if need be.


Or are the botanist wrong?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The easiest way to understand why 'selfed' F1s will produce offspring with the same variation as if it was a sibling pollination, is to go back to my previous example where we crossed two separate true breeding inbred lines P1(AAbbCC) and P2(aaBBcc).

100% of the offspring come up as AaBbCc.

Self one of those and you get the following frequency of occurence in the progeny...
AABBCC: 1
AABBCc: 2
AABBcc: 1
AABbCC: 2
AABbCc: 4
AABbcc: 2
AAbbCC: 1
AAbbCc: 2
AAbbcc: 1
AaBBCC: 2
AaBBCc: 4
AaBBcc: 2
AaBbCC: 4
AaBbCc: 8
AaBbcc: 4
AabbCC: 2
AabbCc: 4
Aabbcc: 2
aaBBCC: 1
aaBBCc: 2
aaBBcc: 1
aaBbCC: 2
aaBbCc: 4
aaBbcc: 2
aabbCC: 1
aabbCc: 2
aabbcc: 1

27 different phenotypes concerning the three tracked traits...

That's just how the F2 generation of a hybrid breeds, 'selfed' or sibling bred, the math is the same.


You and I aren't very far off in our thoughts on the subject at all... in fact, in some of the things where you corrected me, you aren't at all wrong, but neither am I...

 

[Raco]

"fn - designation given the filial generation for the purpose of tracking; e.g. the first generation of captive bred fish derived from wild-caught specimens is deemed f1."

C.X.,
That makes me remember my wild caught discusfish (from Téfé) of many years ago (I interviewed both Jack Wattley and Bernd Degen in 1996).
Re- XyZ´s DC fn+2
I borrowed the term n+1 from Clarke´s MJ Botany,but Clarke is speaking of "aneuploids"..n+1 etc,not "generations".Then XyZ used the same term and called his own DC´s "fn+2",which are two generations further Tom´s originals.
Only Tom knows the exact # for "n"

 

[Raco]

If we want to learn and set a "standard",we have all to be friends here
Peace