T
THE PABLOS
You should read your first couple sentences again...and look in the mirror dude.
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
a 'true' male from S1 seeds?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
You should read your first couple sentences again...and look in the mirror dude.
frito bandito
Member
PABLOS any time you're ready to contribute something intellectual to the discussion feel free buddy. Have fun chillren
T
THE PABLOS
After you
Frito: This guy really,
"if sex is hardcoded and XX = female, then how are people getting males out of S1s? even sometimes getting ALL males when other growers testing the same strain get all females?"
Acting all knowledgeable and almighty then asking the basics??
Do I need to explain this.. I can't usually have a conversation with a person like you. As it take 2 to tango, Tom will be back soon,
You get the males because the plant that was reversed was dominant in its gametophyte for producing a few males flowers, in this scenario it is the breeder who is at fault, he/she probably knew F all about plant science and had done all the wrong or no tests before passing out seed.
So, possibly the seed you think, or describe as S1 or s1 or whatever is in fact just cannabis seed, it is of up most importance to ascertain the sex of the individual involved in a reversal and observe the outcome from its progeny to determine the value of the plant chosen to propagate seed.
The particular gametophyte in the hypothetical specimen chosen for reversal is not creating true female s1's, because nothing, (No Gene) is stopping it becoming pubescent in whichever form it chooses.
A bad plant to self, in basic terms it was not a true xx or xX or XXXxxXxxxXX or whatever was needed to be encoded on that particular cross to propagate all female seed.
Once you have the Basics you learn much faster.
Hypothetical breeding is not much fun Guys and Gals, neither is quoting old papers which need to be referenced, cited and cleared as informative and up to date in the relevant field of discussion.
Learning from these papers is bullshit!
"if sex is hardcoded and XX = female, then how are people getting males out of S1s? even sometimes getting ALL males when other growers testing the same strain get all females?"
Acting all knowledgeable and almighty then asking the basics??
Do I need to explain this.. I can't usually have a conversation with a person like you. As it take 2 to tango, Tom will be back soon,
You get the males because the plant that was reversed was dominant in its gametophyte for producing a few males flowers, in this scenario it is the breeder who is at fault, he/she probably knew F all about plant science and had done all the wrong or no tests before passing out seed.
So, possibly the seed you think, or describe as S1 or s1 or whatever is in fact just cannabis seed, it is of up most importance to ascertain the sex of the individual involved in a reversal and observe the outcome from its progeny to determine the value of the plant chosen to propagate seed.
The particular gametophyte in the hypothetical specimen chosen for reversal is not creating true female s1's, because nothing, (No Gene) is stopping it becoming pubescent in whichever form it chooses.
A bad plant to self, in basic terms it was not a true xx or xX or XXXxxXxxxXX or whatever was needed to be encoded on that particular cross to propagate all female seed.
Once you have the Basics you learn much faster.
Hypothetical breeding is not much fun Guys and Gals, neither is quoting old papers which need to be referenced, cited and cleared as informative and up to date in the relevant field of discussion.
Learning from these papers is bullshit!
It was actually a pretty good post imo 
But to be clear, Cannabis can absolutely withstand some inbreeding, but better plan for lots of failures too, like a somewhat small percentage of parallel selfed lines will survive to clear the program, hence we do several. The other thing is, we might combine a couple of the surviving lines in an outcross to restore vigor as you say (heterozygosity), but this will not have the same fitness boost as say crossing two very divergent lines would, so that distinction must be made as well. And hey, cannabis is X/Y, we can make the distinction by looking at their sex chromosomes, period. What has others hung up is that they want to equate cannabis with humans -yep, ego- but they need to wrap their heads around a much more flexible organism, and get with the point that just because a female can play the part of the male, that doesn't make her male. -T
But to be clear, Cannabis can absolutely withstand some inbreeding, but better plan for lots of failures too, like a somewhat small percentage of parallel selfed lines will survive to clear the program, hence we do several. The other thing is, we might combine a couple of the surviving lines in an outcross to restore vigor as you say (heterozygosity), but this will not have the same fitness boost as say crossing two very divergent lines would, so that distinction must be made as well. And hey, cannabis is X/Y, we can make the distinction by looking at their sex chromosomes, period. What has others hung up is that they want to equate cannabis with humans -yep, ego- but they need to wrap their heads around a much more flexible organism, and get with the point that just because a female can play the part of the male, that doesn't make her male. -T
ok normally I wouldn't bother responding to such a cheap shot as frito took, but now I guess I have to.
It was a lousy post for the following reasons:
A billion like me? Really? Yes I am someone's kid, 4 people's actually, but I won't go into the details of my family background here, the point is, aren't we all? Doesn't matter how old we get, that doesn't change. As for being a kid in the classical sense, I'm into my 5th decade now, and starting to feel my age, so if you want to insult me, pick another avenue, old fogey losing the plot may be more accurate of an insult in my case.
I'd be very interested to know which 3 words though and what precisely you think you know about me from them. Perhaps, science, genetics, chromosomes? Yes they would tell you alot about my approach and where my respect lies, but nothing about me the person. I'm not, nor have I ever claimed to be a scientist, though I do respect those with the dedication to be. I always had a problem with the inductive reasoning side, prefering though accepting the problems associated with its alternatives, deductive reasoning and your favourite frito, pulling "facts" out of your arse.
Yes many growers have told me things, and many more taught me things over the years, and yes I have had many papers sent to me by people I respect in relation to my interests, and yes I have returned a few others too. Is it so unreasonable in your mind to turn to scientific findings when wishing to know the underlying truth of a matter? Perhaps you are one of those people who believe they can just look at a plant and know whats going on inside, like you can look at 3 words from me and know me and a billion like me? I'm afraid I'm going to call it as I see it. You spouted off about something you don't know about, something you once read in a book years ago, probably by some botanist rather than a scientist, and thought you'd come on here and no one would show you that you and anyone else, that you are full of shit. The worst kind of shit bag too one that goes out of his way to insult someone who has just provided them with an education on a topic that they claim to have vast exerience with. Perhaps you have many more decades of experience with the plant than I have, I have no way nor interest in that, what I do have an interest in is what you know, which we now know to be quite little. You claim I need rules to follow, and that I am stuck in a rut, that I worship my ego rather than nature, but what you seem to miss is that the rules I seek are those of nature, as nature follows rules itself. You lay claim that I should be providing original thoughts rather than allowing my ego to be stuck in a rut seeking rules, but by seeking the rules of nature, I let go of my ego, and see no sense in making up my own rules. Would that not truly be letting one's ego lose control?
This I found particularly interesting when you said :
"his forefathers may have been preachers, but he's a totally different sort, a "Scientist." he quotes empty scriptures from his Holy science book and feels it's an adequate substitute for thinking and listening. i guess it's far easier just to say "i'm right, you're wrong, shut up" then to logically justify your position...especially when your position is wrong and does not fit the observations which have been made of this and other plants."
Do you feel preachers are in some way superior to scientists? You seem to think rather badly of science and scientists, please tell us you aren't one of those crazy creationists! To use logic and science to justify a position seems to be blasphemous in your view, and to prove that your position is wrong by making reference to observations that have been made in controlled environments seems to be unjustifiable to you. You really do hate science don't you?
You make refernece to me being a noob, but I've been running threads on this very site for 9 years, as long as its been online infact. And then when I started I was showing the plants that I had already bred at that point. Perhaps why you really dislike me is my Tri line, which proves evolution in action as I now suspect you to be a crazy creationist. I would ask what you have bred, but then to ask that would be like asking you, in what way have you spat in god's face wouldn't it.
Now we move onto your acusation that I have somewhere said that inbreeding is bad I haven't, if you would like to post a quote, I'd be interested. Though what you go on to discuss is the practice of selfing, a different thing to inbreeding entirely. Though nor is that bad in of itself, but as Tom says, you would have to do it from several different starts, and several different offspring at each point to ensure that you aren't creating problems down the road.
I make reference to the cannabis plant, as this is a cannabis board. Yes all plants are related to cannabis, but then so are we. Life has only ever begun on this planet once. All life is related, however evolution separates and created changes, and what is true of one is no longer always true of another.
You say that I have said the sts or cs causes chromosomal damage, I haven't, again a quote would be good here, though you wont find one. I made reference to copying errors, and I think your limited understanding of science has prevented you from understanding what I was refering to. Perhaps a google of the word meiosis may be of benefit to your limited knowledge here.
This I love, You say :
"as for how sex is determined in cannabis? i dont know the exact genes that control the process and why, nor every detail of how it works. i dont have an answer i can give and point to and say "that's is, period, end of discussion."
and then you go on to say:
"there are too many problems with the "XY system" for that to be the correct explanation of what's going on"
For someone who can't say what's going on, you sure find it simple to say what isn't going on don't you. I guess all these dumbfounded book learnin scientist types should just give and go home now that you've provided such an indepth criticism of their work huh?
It was a lousy post for the following reasons:
A billion like me? Really? Yes I am someone's kid, 4 people's actually, but I won't go into the details of my family background here, the point is, aren't we all? Doesn't matter how old we get, that doesn't change. As for being a kid in the classical sense, I'm into my 5th decade now, and starting to feel my age, so if you want to insult me, pick another avenue, old fogey losing the plot may be more accurate of an insult in my case.
I'd be very interested to know which 3 words though and what precisely you think you know about me from them. Perhaps, science, genetics, chromosomes? Yes they would tell you alot about my approach and where my respect lies, but nothing about me the person. I'm not, nor have I ever claimed to be a scientist, though I do respect those with the dedication to be. I always had a problem with the inductive reasoning side, prefering though accepting the problems associated with its alternatives, deductive reasoning and your favourite frito, pulling "facts" out of your arse.
Yes many growers have told me things, and many more taught me things over the years, and yes I have had many papers sent to me by people I respect in relation to my interests, and yes I have returned a few others too. Is it so unreasonable in your mind to turn to scientific findings when wishing to know the underlying truth of a matter? Perhaps you are one of those people who believe they can just look at a plant and know whats going on inside, like you can look at 3 words from me and know me and a billion like me? I'm afraid I'm going to call it as I see it. You spouted off about something you don't know about, something you once read in a book years ago, probably by some botanist rather than a scientist, and thought you'd come on here and no one would show you that you and anyone else, that you are full of shit. The worst kind of shit bag too one that goes out of his way to insult someone who has just provided them with an education on a topic that they claim to have vast exerience with. Perhaps you have many more decades of experience with the plant than I have, I have no way nor interest in that, what I do have an interest in is what you know, which we now know to be quite little. You claim I need rules to follow, and that I am stuck in a rut, that I worship my ego rather than nature, but what you seem to miss is that the rules I seek are those of nature, as nature follows rules itself. You lay claim that I should be providing original thoughts rather than allowing my ego to be stuck in a rut seeking rules, but by seeking the rules of nature, I let go of my ego, and see no sense in making up my own rules. Would that not truly be letting one's ego lose control?
This I found particularly interesting when you said :
"his forefathers may have been preachers, but he's a totally different sort, a "Scientist." he quotes empty scriptures from his Holy science book and feels it's an adequate substitute for thinking and listening. i guess it's far easier just to say "i'm right, you're wrong, shut up" then to logically justify your position...especially when your position is wrong and does not fit the observations which have been made of this and other plants."
Do you feel preachers are in some way superior to scientists? You seem to think rather badly of science and scientists, please tell us you aren't one of those crazy creationists! To use logic and science to justify a position seems to be blasphemous in your view, and to prove that your position is wrong by making reference to observations that have been made in controlled environments seems to be unjustifiable to you. You really do hate science don't you?
You make refernece to me being a noob, but I've been running threads on this very site for 9 years, as long as its been online infact. And then when I started I was showing the plants that I had already bred at that point. Perhaps why you really dislike me is my Tri line, which proves evolution in action as I now suspect you to be a crazy creationist. I would ask what you have bred, but then to ask that would be like asking you, in what way have you spat in god's face wouldn't it.
Now we move onto your acusation that I have somewhere said that inbreeding is bad I haven't, if you would like to post a quote, I'd be interested. Though what you go on to discuss is the practice of selfing, a different thing to inbreeding entirely. Though nor is that bad in of itself, but as Tom says, you would have to do it from several different starts, and several different offspring at each point to ensure that you aren't creating problems down the road.
I make reference to the cannabis plant, as this is a cannabis board. Yes all plants are related to cannabis, but then so are we. Life has only ever begun on this planet once. All life is related, however evolution separates and created changes, and what is true of one is no longer always true of another.
You say that I have said the sts or cs causes chromosomal damage, I haven't, again a quote would be good here, though you wont find one. I made reference to copying errors, and I think your limited understanding of science has prevented you from understanding what I was refering to. Perhaps a google of the word meiosis may be of benefit to your limited knowledge here.
This I love, You say :
"as for how sex is determined in cannabis? i dont know the exact genes that control the process and why, nor every detail of how it works. i dont have an answer i can give and point to and say "that's is, period, end of discussion."
and then you go on to say:
"there are too many problems with the "XY system" for that to be the correct explanation of what's going on"
For someone who can't say what's going on, you sure find it simple to say what isn't going on don't you. I guess all these dumbfounded book learnin scientist types should just give and go home now that you've provided such an indepth criticism of their work huh?
frito bandito
Member
it was not intended to be a "cheap shot." i was simply pointing out that saying things like "that's the way it is, period, end of discussion" is not much of a scientific mindset. it is however the mindset that a lot of "scientist" types take, in contrary to their professed creed. (sound like any christians you know?) when your theory of how things work (the X/Y system), however it was derived, conflicts with the things that people have observed (all males in S1 generation, etc), then reality is not wrong....it's the theory that's wrong.
no, of course not. i am not anti-science in the least. what i'm against is people who treat science with religious devotion, like they are modern day saints out to inform the masses that we're all just a bunch of ignorant dumbasses who should bow before your all encompassing scientific supremacy. i do find science useful, as should any enlightened human being. in fact i have read at least two papers on the cannabis/humulus sex determination system, which both describe it as X/autosomal. obviously, i am not the first person to have noticed this.
well, yes. that's exactly right. it's because of that "inductive thinking" you aren't so good at....which was my point, in pointing out that you are more the concrete thinking type and are simply not able to understand why i'm able to know what i know.
you're just like your parents, and i'm just like mine. like my dad before me, i intuitively understand systems of things. for example we are both good mechanics, the kind who can look at and listen to a motor running and know in seconds just what's wrong with it. he is a telecommunications engineer who designs networks. one of my trades is satellite communications (given up to pursue full time cannabis growing/breeding) and i was always that guy you called out to fix a weird problem when nobody else could figure it out. and i could come out and look at the thing and fix problems in minutes that would baffle others for weeks. i can do this not because i understand every single circuit and wire in the system, or because i know all the ohms value of all resistors in the system and the bitrates and technical specs of everything, but because i have a good high level, abstract model of the system in my head. i can visualize how everything interacts and works together and how one thing affects another.
no, actually, i happened to read a paper (a literature review, i.e. from a scientific journal) just last week which discusses this subject. in that paper the cannabis sex determination system is described as X/autosomal. that's why this thread jumped out at me when I saw it. i already had that opinion before i read this paper. so no, you're way off base.
i don't quote bullshit out of books that random assholes write just because it sounds good. if something fits into my mental model, which is based on everything i've seen and observed, then i integrate it. if there's a conflict then i figure out where and why and adjust my model accordingly. isn't that what scientists do?
you really should learn to dial down that ego a bit. first you assume i know nothing, and now i should be thankful for the "education" you are "providing" me? lol. i replied to you specifically because of your ego combined with your bad "science", to stop your bad information from misinforming others, not because i was trying to "go out of my way" to insult you.
no, i was calling you a religious zealot. the kind who wears a lab coat and is always quoting dogma from their favorite Journal or Study.
well no, again, you're way off mark.
a creationist? LOL. yeah, right...totally.
you know what's so great about being an inductive thinker? i can learn things even without the benefit of a "controlled environment." i can just observe the plant, in its natural or imperfect man-made environment, and learn from it directly. all those variables you concrete thinking types religiously control for? controlled for automatically, in my head, by process of mathematical elimination. if there is doubt in my findings then i just need to see and observe more data. i run more grows, more plants, more seedlings, more clones, more lights, and i watch what happens. the plant has already taught me far more about itself than i could learn from any scientific journal.
why would i have anything against your tri line? i forgot until you mentioned it, that you were working on that. i think it's great that someone is doing this. i bet you get a lot of flack from people who think you are somehow "mutilating" the genetics or what-not.
that's true but the fact is cannabis is much more like the other flowering plants that it is different. it is much more similar to a petunia than a dog for instance. a lot of people get hung up thinking cannabis is somehow special and different from everything else, which is not really true. in the plant world, unlike dogs for instance, XY does not necessarily mean male. an XY plant can be female, and an XX can be male. this is totally normal and expected if (as i assert) sex determination is mostly made in the X chromosome and not the Y. just depends on the plant species.
you are saying cannabis is one way, i'm saying it's another. one scientific paper says one thing, the other says something else. there is no "proving" this one way or another in this thread, without actually conducting some big double blind study where the results are clear. i'm not really in a position to do that nor do i really care enough to. so we have to go with what our inductive reasoning tells us.
no, some of what i wrote was not to you in particular, but just a general rant against many who have posted dumb viewpoints. i guess i strayed off subject a bit and should have been more clear. seems like some of these people who believe in things like XY determination, are many of the same folks who get all bent out of shape at the idea of breeding with selfed plants, for instance. i.e. ignorant
there's that inductive thinking right there in a nutshell. no, i dont know the exact genes involved and how they work. nobody does. but i can observe the behavior of the system as a whole, and intuit what must be happening, and what could not logically be happening, in general. the evidence based on what i've observed and the reports i've seen from others, is against the Y chromosome being the sole factor in determining sex. the X plays a large role too. now it could be that i'm wrong. but as of yet, the evidence i've seen so far points to my view of how it all works being more correct than the XY theory.
before anyone asks: no, i'm not likely to post up the papers i referred to. i have them on my hard drive at home and the names escape me. the odds of me remembering to put those on my laptop before the next time i head out to the internet cafe are pretty slim. the point is, there are scientific papers out there which contradict what GMT is saying, so for him to ask like he is representing the viewpoint of science in telling everyone else they are wrong is absurd. i am sure these papers i read can be turned up on google scholar pretty easy considering that's how i found them a while back; search for "sex determination" and "humulus" or "cannabis."
The kibosh on this X/autosomal theory is this: These "males" (born of gynoecious selection) are not (when used in breeding) producing typical male/female ratio populations, they are producing vastly gynoecious populations. That, it seems to me is fairly strong evidence against the X/autosomal theories. If they were really male, they'd be producing closer to 50/50 male female ratios, but they're not. -Tom
While I do appreciate the shift in language, away from the insulting to the debating, I still wish you would post links to papers that support your position. Then perhaps we could discuss the merit of those papers rather than merely my view versus yours, which is at best pointless. Someone else reading this thread has no way to judge for themselves which of is right, it is merely 2 made up names arguing on an internet board.
I would ask you to refer to what you call males though, as plants expressing male flowers. You may feel that this makes a plant male and I do not, however we can both agree upon what a male or female flower is.
Given your assertion that sex is determined on the X chromosome, and that the Y has little to nothing to do with the process, I have a couple of questions that I hope you are willing to engage with. 1, do you feel that the instruction sets for the flowers is contained in the X/Y chromosomes or do you agree that they are contained within the autosomes? 2, given that in both, diploid and polyploid examples, plants containing a Y, express male flowers, even in xxxy plants express male flowers rather than females, (without artificial interference) whereas xxxx plants express female flowers, how would you explain that phenomenon without an active Y system being the cause of the flower expression?
I have no problem with you attacking the claims I make, as it is only by refuting opposition that claims gain acceptance, it was the personal attack that I objected to.
I would ask you to refer to what you call males though, as plants expressing male flowers. You may feel that this makes a plant male and I do not, however we can both agree upon what a male or female flower is.
Given your assertion that sex is determined on the X chromosome, and that the Y has little to nothing to do with the process, I have a couple of questions that I hope you are willing to engage with. 1, do you feel that the instruction sets for the flowers is contained in the X/Y chromosomes or do you agree that they are contained within the autosomes? 2, given that in both, diploid and polyploid examples, plants containing a Y, express male flowers, even in xxxy plants express male flowers rather than females, (without artificial interference) whereas xxxx plants express female flowers, how would you explain that phenomenon without an active Y system being the cause of the flower expression?
I have no problem with you attacking the claims I make, as it is only by refuting opposition that claims gain acceptance, it was the personal attack that I objected to.
Mitochondrial Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
Mitochondrial Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
Mitochondria, are structures in each plant cell that convert photosynthate molecules into energy, each contain a small amount of (DNA).
Because only egg cells contribute mitochondria to the developing embryo, only females xx can pass on mitochondrial mutations to their progeny.
Latent disorders resulting from mutations in mitochondrial DNA can appear in every filial generation and can affect both males and females.
However, Males do not pass these disorders to their progeny.
Many other disorders are caused by a combination of the effects of multiple genes or by interactions between genes and the environment. Such disorders are more difficult to analyse because their genetic causes are often unclear, they do not follow the patterns of inheritance described above.
Cannabis plants inherit two copies of their genes, two gametophyte, one from their mother and one from their father.
Usually, both copies of each gene are active, or “turned on.” In some cases, however, one of the two possible copies is turned on.
Which copy is active depends on the parent of origin.
Some genes are normally active only when they are inherited from Male; others are active only when inherited from a person’s mother.
This phenomenon is known as genomic imprinting.
Imprinted genes tend to cluster together in the same regions of chromosomes.
Mitochondrial Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
Mitochondria, are structures in each plant cell that convert photosynthate molecules into energy, each contain a small amount of (DNA).
Because only egg cells contribute mitochondria to the developing embryo, only females xx can pass on mitochondrial mutations to their progeny.
Latent disorders resulting from mutations in mitochondrial DNA can appear in every filial generation and can affect both males and females.
However, Males do not pass these disorders to their progeny.
Many other disorders are caused by a combination of the effects of multiple genes or by interactions between genes and the environment. Such disorders are more difficult to analyse because their genetic causes are often unclear, they do not follow the patterns of inheritance described above.
Cannabis plants inherit two copies of their genes, two gametophyte, one from their mother and one from their father.
Usually, both copies of each gene are active, or “turned on.” In some cases, however, one of the two possible copies is turned on.
Which copy is active depends on the parent of origin.
Some genes are normally active only when they are inherited from Male; others are active only when inherited from a person’s mother.
This phenomenon is known as genomic imprinting.
Imprinted genes tend to cluster together in the same regions of chromosomes.
frito bandito
Member
see, that's exactly my point. you're not getting it. those papers mean nothing. arguing about some research papers is just as pointless. nothing is going to be proved in this thread.
yes. exactly. that's the point. the readers have to judge by themselves, based on their own thoughts and experience. there is no proven "right" answer. anyone who wants to truly understand this plant will do so through growing it, not reading papers. we all have to build up a mental model in our minds of how the plant works, then test each and other piece of "info" we receive to see how it fits into our models. obviously none of us is 100% right at this stage, but others can read our thoughts and decide for themselves.
any plant which exclusively produces male flowers, at all stages in its life cycle, is a male plant. that plant could be either XY or XX. (or possibly YY or some other combination.) in your mind XY means male and XX means female. but in my model if an XX plant produces male flowers, and male/female offspring, it's male. if an XY produces all female flowers then it's a female. if it produces both then it's a hermie.
that is not what i said. what i said is, the Y chromosome is only part of the equation; it certainly plays a large role. the X chromosome is where most of the determination is made though IMO.
the instruction sets for all male and female parts are contained within each and every cannabis plant. i have no idea what that means regarding the specific genes involved or their location. i don't have enough information to comment on that.
the way i see it the presence of the Y chromosome masks and/or changes the expression of genes contained within the X/autosome, in the majority of cases causing it to be pushed towards the male sex. it's not guaranteed though and depends on the actual genes present and how they interact with ones in other chromosomes and to the environment. there could be an XXXY plant which "decides" early on to become female, or XXXX which becomes male, based on these gene "ratios" being out of whack. like a "chemical imbalance" except the negative connotation in that phrase would come from our own flawed perceptions, not anything the plant is doing "wrong." it evolved to have a Y chromosome for a reason and it serves a purpose but that purpose is not necessarily exactly what we humans ASSume it is, based on our other experiences. i think once the primary sex is selected it's fixed and there is no altering it during the plant's life, but its likely there is a separate system at work which will trigger in case of stress etc to cause the opposite sex to express (i.e. nanners.)
frito bandito
Member
i think the example you gave does not refute and actually supports my theory. so it seems what you're saying is a female plant was selfed, producing some "males" which are then bred to other plants, and those themselves when bred out tend to produce an abnormally large number of female offspring. that is exactly what i would expect to happen. in my theory the reason those plants turned "male" is because of stress or some other factor early in growth, which made them decide to "choose" male as their sex, when "normally" they "ought" to be female. now that male sex has been chosen, thats what they will express the rest of their lives, no matter how many times you clone it etc. but regardless of what sex phenotype the plant picked early on, the genotype remains the same. it's still an XX plant and it likely would have become female if conditions had been different. if you cross it with another XX plant that has much more "normal" genetic ratios/factors, it would push the offspring sex ratio much more towards what's expected i.e. mostly expressing the "proper" female sex. so grow out the offspring and you'll get lots of females, because all the plants are XX and most/all those "abnormal" factors in the XX "male" parent have been masked/changed.
if this is correct then logicall it would follow: if you have a XX plant which can produce male S1 offspring, you could work with that line and gradually alter the sex ratios through breeding so that you eventually got a "standard" 50/50 ratios, with all XX plants. it wouldn't be exactly like a standard XX/XY strain though because the Y chromosome i believe does carry certain genes which are not replicated on the X, which are male specific, such as genes that boosts vertical growth, suppress branching, etc. so im thinking in this hypothethical all XX male/female population, the males would probably closely resemble the females in overall appearance. you'd probably get something like a big bushy plant covered with male flowers rather than the tall stretchy thing with flowers clustered up top, as you do now with a typical male.
I tend to disagree about the papers. People could see what was done and what was found. They see more than just guys with more time than sense and are therefore better informed. Its not just people judging based upon their own ideas and picking their favourite flavour, they see which is valid and which isn't.
You were quite careful to include the offspring produced in your definition of what a male is, therefore you seem to accept that what a male is, is connected to the genes it contains and passes on, yet still cling to the opinion that if it looks male it is male. Surely you can see the inconsistency there?
If the determination was made by the X chromosome, yet you accept the Y plays a role, what is that role in your view? You say it changes the expression of the genes, but that is exactly what the active Y theory states. Yet you will not accept the active Y theory. You are slowly coming to the realisation that active Y is the way things work, though wont admit it. You are even prepared to accept that genes have to be what you call "out of whack" for the active Y not to work in the way it normally would. The same situation I described earlier that you took such exception to. I don't think you actually argue against what I say, its merely the value judgement that I made on these individuals that you object to. In that case, you would be in Tom's camp rather than mine, if you just accept what Tom and I both accept to be the mechanism at work. Which I suspect you actually now do but are reluctant to say outright.
You were quite careful to include the offspring produced in your definition of what a male is, therefore you seem to accept that what a male is, is connected to the genes it contains and passes on, yet still cling to the opinion that if it looks male it is male. Surely you can see the inconsistency there?
If the determination was made by the X chromosome, yet you accept the Y plays a role, what is that role in your view? You say it changes the expression of the genes, but that is exactly what the active Y theory states. Yet you will not accept the active Y theory. You are slowly coming to the realisation that active Y is the way things work, though wont admit it. You are even prepared to accept that genes have to be what you call "out of whack" for the active Y not to work in the way it normally would. The same situation I described earlier that you took such exception to. I don't think you actually argue against what I say, its merely the value judgement that I made on these individuals that you object to. In that case, you would be in Tom's camp rather than mine, if you just accept what Tom and I both accept to be the mechanism at work. Which I suspect you actually now do but are reluctant to say outright.
i read this paper <you have to click 'look inside'
In other words, all seed that ever existed and will ever exist, has always been and always will be subjected to this scenario, and there is no way around it..
