TWO S1 LINE PRODUCES MALES

[GMT]

Then you are now accepting, that in my (what you call temporary) world, regardless of how foolish that world may appear to you, my tri line is of value?

 

[Tom Hill]

it has value to a man with no hands, and therefore can't top his plant in his temporary environment. haha, yeah, zero value.

 

[wrongwrong]

Friggin hell this is like the sparring me and the misses just did.... (I came off worse, but thats the norm!)

 

[GMT]

lol, you're a swine Tom Hill, an utter swine

listen I'm still up from yesterday, and its hitting 2pm here, I really need to get my head down.
If you bash me further, I'll respond when I get up later.

 

[GMT]

one last bit of maths for you tom, if you top a bi twice you have 4 stems, which you admit is better, if you do the same with a tri you have 6.

 

[FOE20]

just wanted to say thnx to all you cats for all the views...I had a Bog Bubble yrs ago that was very frosted and have the pics still...looks spot on for what HH posted cept frosted....mine showed a few Pistils later in the stages..asked allot of folk about this just cause I really wanted to use it being I thought it was a solid Male at the time, and perty sure it wasn't rel as a Fem line or any herm issues...But at the time the consensus was Hermi trait and folks talking over consisted of Heath, BreederSteve, Gruru, Fet, think eXe or hyb even had a word...and I culled it...
but the views here put a quite different light on it...

do other plant varieties express these Male2Fem rev traits?...does this exist elsewhere naturally?...
man i shouldn't of done those bong rips before reading this thread....heh...
to know I coulda kept stock of that line....damn...but thnx..
FOE20

 

[wrongwrong]

just wanted to say thnx to all you cats for all the views...I had a Bog Bubble yrs ago that was very frosted and have the pics still...looks spot on for what HH posted cept frosted....mine showed a few Pistils later in the stages..asked allot of folk about this just cause I really wanted to use it being I thought it was a solid Male at the time, and perty sure it wasn't rel as a Fem line or any herm issues...But at the time the consensus was Hermi trait and folks talking over consisted of Heath, BreederSteve, Gruru, Fet, think eXe or hyb even had a word...and I culled it...
but the views here put a quite different light on it...

do other plant varieties express these Male2Fem rev traits?...does this exist elsewhere naturally?...
man i shouldn't of done those bong rips before reading this thread....heh...
to know I coulda kept stock of that line....damn...but thnx..
FOE20

Yes other sub dioecious polymorph types, however like TH has a bee in his bonnet on the tri's, I have issues with the use of these plants. is it really something you want to perpetuate? or like TH suggests can it be cancelled out? over time something has to give and with these sorts in the mix a switch to full dioecy or a cont'd state with these sorts in it!, I know which i'd prefer. I feel these types are inconsistant males like lloyd suggested in 1976.. or are they indeed females that are extremely sensitive, I personally find them a different morph to most intersexual females

Are they the result of hybridization? or can TH say that these appear in the lines he has maintained? I'm guessing that when these types are present we see a move from 1:1 ratios.. to a more female based population.

Edit: since the mods did a hatchet job, will add here, the population has to go more female TH, theres no choice as the "males" seen are female be it intersex or with a mutation on the x sry or such like etc, stands that you will get more fems and more of the same!, XX males like da la chapelle (though i'd of thought this rare!) did have a post on this but the butchers got it for f**k knows what reason

 

[FOE20]

kewl wwrong...it all got me thinkin..Later or survival selfing within a large population would not only have mixed pollen donors but also over generations continue to re-stabilize itself..So even if there was a off season with low count males the Females herm to prod more offspring but its all still within a population..
So in what case would a Male revert naturally in a open pollination?...This is very odd thinking and even the theoretical views isn't doin it for me just yet..
I culled the male that reverted as said so I had the same thinking as you indeed as its not only lowering the possible traits associated with the male side but changing its natural balance within its own populous..
But what Tom is saying strikes a few notes for me as well...specially the way Indoor is mentioned being limited populations and very unnatural..If I had a large population I think after reading thru this I would of, cause then I could of reinstalled the orig balance and in a way slowly remove any odd tendency like this...True landraces will dom their region..Even when infused with others after a while the dom regional genetic traits take back over as its the region which helps define their expression anyway..
moot point tho now...
Im starting to think its a fluke...
but if I had that Male and he was a above avr sport like I did I would of least tried this by now....
Im a believer in forward standard pollination/breeding...making this all very hard to swallow but its a unique and wonderful plant anyway...and don't think we'll ever stop learning from it...great thread folks...
FOE20

 

[Tom Hill]

Kopite, this will not be a more female based population, well, perhaps it will - exactly as we are talking about in this thread, hence it's relevance. However, the masses will tell you that it's a more male population, just ask GMT about this. There is no correlation between yield, or resin production, or anything else. Like autism paints the top-side of the human rainbow, so too these plants are redheaded stepchildren across the board. And as stated previously, this is not necessarily anything to get exited about, being that the only trait they seem to be linked with is sexual confusion upon expression. And of course this 3 parted nodes, which clearly the energy of which is spread out among the three.

 

[Tom Hill]

and yes they are everywhere, to the tune of about 1-3% across the board ime. Until Gmt proved (imo) that it is a qualitative trait. Okay, done, we've explored the other possible values there, and it's high time to move on, imo. we all need opposition, I reckon.

 

[gingerale]

They're not males ime, but highly staminate intersex females. Cannabis plants (sex) are controlled first by the XY system, but secondly (expression) by (often environmentally triggered) modifying factors located on autosomes, or pseudoautosomal regions. A female plant with a noted absence of masculine type modifiers can be said to be strongly female. When selfed her progeny will contain very few if any intersex individuals. The opposite type of plant (a female with a noted abundance of masculine type modifiers) -though they may be masked in the parent- will occasionally give rise upon recombination to what you're referring to in this thread. But they're not really males.

Bullshit. They are just as "male" as any other plant.

 

[GMT]

I'm afraid I'd have to agree with the Kopite, if you have a 50:50 ratio from male:female parentage, and then you add some intersexed males into the mix, then the ratio wouldn't move, but when allowing intersexed "female fathers", then the ratio will increase from the central 50:50 or 1:1 if you want precision with the maths rather than easily interpretable numbers for the masses, to a slight leaning to more females than males, as the "female fathers" can only produce female offspring rather than an equal number. And you're still using an outdated concept with the tri's. If cellular reproduction was done in a central area and then transported to the growth points, I'd agree, but since it isn't, its created locally, then its like saying that small trees will produce bigger apples than big trees, due to the energy of growing apples being split between all the apples produced.


Edit, though allowing "male mothers" would as Tom says, shift the pop to mainly males among the offspring. I guess allowing both would keep the 1:1 while including the supermale to be in the offspring, which would themselves only ever produce male offspring.

 

[GMT]

gingerale, that explanation by Tom is about the best most concise I've seen, and I agree with that completely.

 

[gingerale]

He is mostly correct about what's overall occurring, but the conclusion is wrong. What's referred to as the "Y" chromosome does not "guarantee" maleness. The male and female traits (genes and code to produce sexual structures, etc) are located in X chromosomes. The presence of a "Y" chromosome can (and most times, does) cause a plant to become locked into the male habit, but not necessarily. An embryo without a Y chromosome, growing into a mature plant certainly can still become male (or hermie) if environmental conditions are right. An embryo with that chromosome can also become female if circumstances are right, though I'd imagine this is more rare. Breed with the resulting plant in either case, and you'll get males and females, in various ratios depending on genetics, environment, etc. Bottom line is any cannabis pheno showing exclusively male traits is by definition a male, and for all intents and purposes just as male as any other male.

 

[GMT]

Well that's the thing, I think the prob is terminology. a Y does guarantee its a male plant, but not that it will exhibit soley the male pheno, epigenetics will also play a role in expression, which is What Tom was refering to. The problem with the intersexed plants, is telling whether its a female exhibiting male organs or a male exhibiting female organs.

 

[gingerale]

Y does not guarantee a male plant. It is not a reliable indicator of anything. It is quite possible (though not common) to encounter an XY plant which is fully and completely female in every sense of the word. There are likewise plenty of all-X males. It has nothing to do with epigenetics; it's actually quite simple. There are signaling chemicals produced by the plant under various conditions. If genetically-determined "threshold" levels of certain chemicals are reached and maintained as the embryo matures into an adult plant, a "switch" is permanently flipped and the plant becomes male or female.

The X chromosome contains every last bit of genetic code required to fully implement this; Y chromosome is not required, ever. It can disappear from history and cannabis will still survive with some breeding help from man to shift it back to proper sexual ratios. "Y" chromosome as pertains to sexual determination simply "overrides" some of those X signaling pathways and alters the balance of chemicals, which generally alters sexual ratios by pushing the plant towards being a male. It's very possible and quite common however for an "X-only" plant to become a male. If you continue breeding exclusively with X-only plants, you will still have cannabis, period, forever and ever. You might end up with a higher ratio of females to males, but that ratio can also be bred an altered back to 50:50 or even higher if you wished. You can also breed a line of XY plants that produces almost all females.

How many of these supposed "true males" have you actually taken down to the laboratory, dissected, and scrutinized under a microscrope to see if there is a Y chromosome in the nucleus? Bet if you tested 100 random "males" from any cannabis garden you'd probably find a good eighth to quarter of them have no Y chromosome.

 

[Tom Hill]

while the Y does guarantee maleness, the X does not guarantee femaleness, no sir, they are not "absolutely male", it seems not to be happening. Hey, when you "mostly correct" pull my covers, do it with some uumph. Sexual expression traits which are altered along with environment are NOT located on the female chromosome, this is the point, they present themselves on many fronts. It is so fucking obvious, this plant flips before that, under the same stressor, one of many. These are autosomes we speak of, in a highly complex conglomeration, if you will. All evidence points to this. You lost me at if it looks male it is. So narrow, so full of shit. Show me, bring it.

this is this bullshit simplified version of "the switch" conveniently located on the sex chromosome argument. Tehee, good luck with all that. It was a real good first guess, but it ain't happening ime.

 

[Tom Hill]

and though plants are fairly plastid, it amuses me anybody might think they are any less complicated than man, or a working dog.

 

[gingerale]

Show you? No, please show me. Your post is borderline incoherent. Please take some time to edit and/or rewrite your thoughts into a readable rebuttal, then I will be glad to respond. (No offense--I really can't understand what you are trying to say here, and I had to edit my own shit a hundred times as usual to make it readable. Maybe this Haze blunt has something to do with it...but really.)

PS. I'm a big fan of yours. Looking forward to growing your strains one day soon. I just think the old school X/Y theory of sexual determination as applied to cannabis is incorrect and/or overly simplified.

 

[Tom Hill]

if I was on some snatch attack, I would tell you that this what you say is a product of your femaleness. In reality, it is a product of your 120+ terpenes... get with that program, it's the truth.