Chem 91??????

[stickshift]

Can I get the pollen tested to find the 'Y'?

could you elucidate as to why it isn't possible for it to be a male?

You seem pretty set in your opinions so what's your reasoning?

So a plant that only has male flowers. Produces pollen. No pistils whatsoever. Is a female. Great! This is because it derived from hermie pollen?

Hmmmm i'm not convinced. Convince me. Don't post links though. YOU convince me.

Perhaps because the presence of the "Y" is what makes something male in regard to this plant. Having a plant with all balls means nothing! by your reckoning all things that look like a male should be a male though we know with humans this aint so.

Maybe you should of bothered your arse to read one of the linked threads, but you seem above that or some shit because your plant has balls! GMT put it nicely on the 2nd page of the 1st linked thread;

no you guys dont understand. Please stop filing the boards with bullshit. you are just repeating old bullshit someone else spouted to you trying to look like they knew what they were talking about. they didn't and neither do you. you are wrong its not up for debate its not a matter of opinion, its just fact. 1+1=2, males cant be found in seeds from reversed females, its just the way it is. Please stop confusing people, please stop trying to sound like you know anything, you are wrong its not possible. sheesh.

 

[The Hummus Monk]

Wow nice one Stickshift. You're really great. So brooding and authoritative.

And it seems...you're also a massive cock! Hooray.

 

[stickshift]

Wow nice one Stickshift. You're really great. So brooding and authoritative.

And it seems...you're also a massive cock! Hooray.

I couldn't give a fuck what you think of me, I can give a fuck when people spew shit like it's fact when it isn't, you have stated you have a 100% male, yet you don't know this as fact, you're purely going on the point it has "balls".

 

[The Hummus Monk]

Yeah you're just great. Just great vibes from you. Ace.

 

[symbiote420]

How do these discussions always end up like this? I say do what you feel HM ....they used to say the world was flat too!

 

[Piff Rhys Jones]

I think the progency will clear this one up.

The lack of a Y chromosome means it is not genetically male, but if it has the same effect as a male in terms of breeding then who cares?

If this "male" produces regular female/male progency then the goal has been achieved.

Good vibes to all.

Peace

 

[The Hummus Monk]

Yep. Piff's right...the pollen will prove itself to be of any value when the seeds get grown.

In my humble, silly, misguided and certainly not factual opinion (that ok Stickshit?) it was 100% male.

So I have high hopes for the progeny...

Anyway...Chem 91...what's all that about then?

 

[The Hummus Monk]

I'm actually flowering a C+ x Chem 91 now. Sprouted 3, got 2 males and 1 fem.

So this is actually and S1 mother (critical+) x S1 mother/father/thing

Bound to fail surely?!

 

[HidingInTheHaze]

What does the male look like? How similar to the chem 91 cut?

Not talking shit, just curious.

 

[mack 10]

This thread needs some pics, who's got Chem '91 shots?
Mack.

 

[dank.frank]

Stickshift -

I've seen some strange things happen with cannabis - and HONESTLY - the more off the wall, the more seemingly impossible / bizarre / against all the known facts - the "impossible" - well, I've SEEN such plants become the most important in the stable. MANY times over. Just look at the history of countless elite plants that came to be by complete accident or mishap.

So let me ask this - a plant that flowers female, full pistils and resin - throws ZERO male pollen sacks - gets re-vegged and is now a male - no pistils, full balls. Does not and has not ever shown another pistil...

Will you try and tell me that scenario is impossible also???

The fact of the matter is - Chem '91 S1 seeds produced a plant that flowers as a male. It produces balls and pollen - breeds m/f seeds - and you want to tell me it should have been thrown out!?!?

I could care less about the drama that you are causing for no other reason than to be a negative nancy...

Regardless what anyone thinks - I'm going to sort those seeds made from this ball showing, no pistil throwing, pollen dropping "female" - and the chances are I'll find better cannabis than I am currently smoking.

That to me is a win - no matter how you chalk it up.

It's easy to sit back and repeat what others say or assert as fact - it's something else entirely to be an actual grower and have experiences under your belt that spits in the face of what is considered possible. It happens EVERY day in EVERY field of science, technology, etc. And then we write new books, new laws, establish new facts - to take into account what has been witnessed and accomplished.

In every group of people there are those who are full of hate and bitterness and only desire to inflict their misery onto others for the sole purpose of keeping others from accomplishing anything they couldn't have themselves...

If you want to get REAL about it - the whole chemical inducing of female plants to produce pollen for the making of S1 lines is in itself the alteration and the inconsistency. To make ALL female seeds IS NOT NATURAL. The fact a male showed face should be consider more normal and less surprising, in a round about way.

And you seem to be a rather unhappy person. Perhaps you need to find what cannabis strains really uplift your mind, body, and spirit - enjoy them a bit more - rather than attacking someone else for wanting to enjoy, to the fullest, the seeds they purchased...regardless of what showed face in the seeds.

Hummus - haters gonna hate - F.U.C.K.E.M.



dank.Frank

 

[The Hummus Monk]

Spot on DF!

 

[The Hummus Monk]

Chem 91 S1 Male, all bent to hell so I could fit in a tiny box with a cfl to collect pollen. Stem rub was consistently fuel/funk with a definite minty thing also.

 

[stickshift]

I think the progency will clear this one up.

The lack of a Y chromosome means it is not genetically male, but if it has the same effect as a male in terms of breeding then who cares?

If this "male" produces regular female/male progency then the goal has been achieved.

Good vibes to all.

Peace

how the frig would it give you regular m/f ratio ???? it can't it's impossible, it can give you more females and more of the same females with balls, perhaps chimera explains shit best....

Of course another extremely intelligent and valuable series of posts from Mr Hill, surprise surprise.

I would agree with his assessment, if the plants show a lack of male markers. In that case, I would agree.... but it is not possible to rule out pollen contamination from a XY source, without genetic testing. Whether this is actually a XX-male-modifier-rich plant, or an XY individual has not been shown... so it's hard to rule out contamination. Were the seeds not produced by Charlie, I would lean heavily towards contamination..... at this point though either proposal is really speculation.

Good food for thought though, either way.

Make a test cross. If you see 1:1 male:female ratios, you are likely looking at a true male (XY) plant. If not, Tom's theory likely holds some merit. Who knew there was more to him than big plants and a pretty face?

Respectfully,
-Chimera
__________________
Imagine, nature being illegal. What have we become?

More Agriculture
Less Agro-Culture

>> I dunno gingerale, I happen to think you are incorrect also. Your model doesn't fit with the current understanding of sexual determination in cannabis. If you want to bring new evidence or a new theory, the way I see it it's your responsibility to bring new information or explain how your position fits with the current model.

Y chromosome presence certainly does mean the plant is a male, by definition. All of the plants I've screened for the presence of a Y chromosome (via PCR with primers directed against Y chromosome located markers) show as males AND pass on 'maleness' via a Y chromosome in a 50:50 ratio when mated to female plants.

How many of these plants that you claim as male have you shown to not contain a Y chromosome? What's your methodology, or what lab is testing for you, and what protocol are they using?

I'm not sure who said it here but I should point out that the factors that are responsible for maleness can't possibly lie on the pseudo-autosomal region of the Y chromosome (and thus a portion of the X by corollary), because then it would be passed along on the X chromosome when recombination occurred between the X and Y, and these markers would show up in genetically female plants often, which they don't.

There is also absolutely no evidence to suggest that the 'modifying factors' which are involved in male flower development are either on the autosomes or X chromosome pair; the only thing we know with certainty is that something that determines male-ness is located on the Y-chromosome- be it a transcription factor or other gene product that result in plants with the Y chromosome being of the male gender. Either way, when it's present, the plant is a male.

We can make all sorts of transient and inducible changes in sexual expression on plants of both sexes via application of ethylene or ethylene blockers; that much shows us the genes involved in male-flower production themselves, are located on the autosomes or the non-PAR region of the X.

It should be no surprise given the obvious major controlling factor is ethylene- one of only 5 major plant hormones - that changes in ethylene levels will lead to atypical expression of the gender of the plant- ie the ability for genetically female plants to show male flowers, and vice versa. Given that ethylene levels are known to change in various plants as the life-cycle ends ( fruits ripening, for example) it stands to reason that natural or induced changes in ethylene by stress or other factors, can and does lead to atypical sexual expression.

-Chimera

then if it is XY how has it come about from a S1 plant?

 

[GMT]

DF, you asked me to pop in here and give my opinion. So please don't take shots at me for giving it. As you have read, you know my view on this already. Stickshift pointed it out.
Some in here will know me, some wont, some will value the time I put into learning about the plant, the genetics side, and will know what my particular line of interest is, and where I am with it.
Take everything I know to be true, and put it on a postage stamp next to stickshift's football pitch.
If you don't believe what stick tells you about this matter, then you could refer to what tom hill says, or you could refer to what chimera says, or you could accept what I say.

A male cannabis plant is that which possesses a Y chromosome. It will pass that Y chromosome onto 50% of its offspring. They will in turn be male cannabis plants.
A Female cannabis plant is one which contains 2 X chromosomes. They will always pass on an X chromosome to their offspring. Which if breed with a male, will be 50% male and 50% female. A Female cannabis plant that is crossed with another Female or with itself, can only ever pass on X chromosomes. Therefore these offspring can only ever be considered to be females, regardless of how they behave.
We all know that the instruction sets for producing flowers are contained in the autosomal region of the dna, and that the trigger for which sets of instructions are acted upon lies in the interaction of the sex chromosome and the autosome.
We all know that spontaneous mutations occur during meiosis, and that these can have unpredictable effects on the offspring.
However, what defines a male is not only the expression of flowers, but also the inheritance of it's genetic content. If it cannot pass on a Y chromosome, it cannot be male, nor can it's offspring.
The value of a female that is passing on dna that acts as if it was a male is a debate that can, and has been had many times over. Stickshift provided links to a couple of them.
What is not up for debate is whether a female that is selfed, can give rise to actual male plants. It can't. That is not up for debate, it is science.
Though I do know that doesn't stop some on here arguing that just because it is scientifically proven, doesn't mean it is right. That science is just another opinion. But they are nutters and should be given the respect they deserve.
Anyway, that's my one and only input on the thread.

 

[stickshift]

Dank.Frank ~ et al

not once have I told anyone what to do, I have stated what I would of done when asked by Hummus nothing more and nothing less, I have not preached from some pulpit to you like a bullshitting priest.. show me what drama I have caused? show me how I was negative? did I start the shit slinging?

and then you have this

If you want to get REAL about it - the whole chemical inducing of female plants to produce pollen for the making of S1 lines is in itself the alteration and the inconsistency. To make ALL female seeds IS NOT NATURAL. The fact a male showed face should be consider more normal and less surprising, in a round about way.

fuck me! why bother at all.

 

[The Hummus Monk]

Nice post GMT.

So basically I found a xx chromosome plant that behaved totally like an xy chromosome plant but without the y? I'm fine with that.

100% male was obviously the wrong term by me. I should have said 100% male in terms of everything except the genes LOL! 100% male in terms of its physical attributes.

If someone who didn't know what seed it came from they would say it was male.

Could I get the pollen tested to see if the Y is present?

I agree with DF when he said often this weirdo males (reverse herm, 'male' from s1's etc) produce stellar offspring.

I'm glad I harvested and shared the pollen. So far I have got a 2:1 mf ratio from the 3 beans I popped.

 

[OvergrowDaWorld]

Not many over here know the power of the chem!
Spread the good word.

The Gospel of Chem!
1:1 ~ In the beginning was the Chem, and the Chem was with God, and the Chem was created by God.
And God saw that it was good.

 

[ElRubio]

The Gospel of Chem!
1:1 ~ In the beginning was the Chem, and the Chem was with God, and the Chem was created by God.
And God saw that it was good.

ROTFLMFAO
hehehehehe
Going to put it up in my sign inmediatelly...
LOL
The Gospel of Chem

heheh

 

[dank.frank]

Stick - It's like this to me - If we were talking IN PERSON - and you started cussing to make your point - I'm going to look at you like a 5 year old and then walk away laughing...

I never stated that you were incorrect - but rather - your approach of sharing information is hostile and aggressive - which again, just makes me want to treat you like the child you are showing yourself to be.

GMT - thank you for taking a minute to re-iterate your thoughts on the matter. Nothing but respect for you, brother! I've always appreciated how you carry yourself on the forums.

I do understand the chromosomes and such and why the plant can't be genetically male. I have understood this for years. But what science does not explain - is why in fact a plant that has XX in it's genetic makeup - behaves exactly like an XY. Where science fails to give an exact reasoning, tells me there is more to the equation that we have yet to fully understand. And by such reasoning, there is an immense reason to utilize such offspring if not for the sole purpose of attempting to gain that understanding.

I would be highly interested to understand how a plant that is XX, behaves like a male and then produces XY offspring. If they are not XY offspring, as we have discussed, then why is it the next filial generation is showing XX males as well??? One would think, the m/f ratio would give rise to MUCH more females - with a few of them showing intersexed male tendencies, ie balls or hermi flowers later in flower, as opposed to say a plant that actually XY.

Which again is why Tom suggested a contamination in the pollination process - OR - because he trusted Charlie - that there is just some things we don't fully understand yet in the behavioral mechanics of genetic scripting between such expression types.

THIS was my point all along. For someone who wants to come in to the thread talking text book knowledge and having a vast appreciation for the scientific - you would think there would be a desire to KEEP such a plant to further the understanding of such behaviors - that is the nature of a scientist - to understand what does not fit into the functioning script we have written at this point.

Someone who IS pushing forward - pushing the envelope - a bit of a breech into the unknown - should be supported by this community, not belittled and torn down. (this last sentence more clearly explains what irked me Stick)

I wish I was some place where lab testing cannabis plants wasn't considered taboo...



dank.Frank