Chem 91??????

[stickshift]

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.

it was all there in the linked threads, the fact some couldn't be bothered to read them says enough. Was I hostile to you? did I even address you? NO! you stuck your beak in for the sake of it. Why should I repeat it when it was already there? but i'm the child? sorry did I need the spoon feeding?

you then went on to make an idiotic statement, is that my problem or yours?

 

[dank.frank]

Yep. Not going to go down the road of some childish back and forth. I've had my say. Either address the issue being discussed or take a walk...pretty simple really.

PS - I did read the links.

PSS - Yes, you are hostile to me when you change the nature / vibe of a thread by coming into it and taking a huge steaming dump in the middle of the room.

Unless you have anything else to contribute, via your OWN knowledge vs riding on the coat tails of those like Chimera and Tom - then take your high horse puffery the F.U.C.K. on down the road, mate.

The FACT is - if there was NO mix up in the pollen - THEN, we have EXACTLY what Tom said - something taking place that IS NOT fully understood as to how / why it happens, REGARDLESS of what current genomic science has thus far established as fact.

If you can't expand upon the current knowledge, all you are doing is pissing on those trying to push further into the breech of the unknown....WHICH, in fact makes you a science hater - not a lover of.

You want to call me an idiot - hahahah - no, you're not hostile at all.

Enjoy your schwagger...



dank.Frank

 

[stickshift]

You want to call me an idiot - hahahah - no, you're not hostile at all.

perhaps you cannot read, I didn't call you an idiot I said you made an idiotic statement though I'm sure it will not be the last.

you say I hang on the coat tails of others yet then start to align yourself with TomHill, I've been going off my own knowledge and sticking my pecker on the chopping block for a while now, where the fuck have you been? I don't ride on any ones tail and have argued with 2 of the mentioned people as I don't always agree, you're a clueless prick. Thanks for the pissing match.

 

[The Hummus Monk]

Oh dear Stickshit. You really are wonderful at being a grumpy troll aren't you? Poor Stickshit. Maybe you could just waddle on over to the nearest bridge and be a real troll?

 

[HidingInTheHaze]

So this thread has been trashed.

Let's hear and see more about the clone and less about marketing and pissing contests.

Why is it here at IC every educational thread always turns in to this.

 

[dank.frank]

Shift - I'm very glad you are on the forefront of the cannabis industry. If not for you, this plant would have ceased to exist eons ago. What would this world be without you?!!

On a side note let me read from one of my personal favorite books:

idiotic - 1. showing foolishness or stupidity. 2. Exhibiting idiocy.

idiocy - a noun. NOT an adjective. So, your usage in a descriptive context is a linguistic foul.
1. Extreme folly or stupidity.
2. A foolish or stupid utterance or deed.
3. In Psychology - The state or condition of being an idiot; profound mental retardation.

So no, I suppose you did not directly call me an idiot. Instead, you said I speak as if I am intellectually disabled. That is so much better. Thank you for clarifying your contrite little line in the sand.

But to help me better understand myself, Shift - can you please state to which degree my impairment inhibits my mental function? After all, you're teaching me things about myself I wasn't even aware of...please, feel free to continue.





dank.Frank

 

[dank.frank]

HITH - no marketing taking place...not sure where you are getting that idea. These beans will never see anything other than personal gardens of close friends who desire to explore the chem lines more fully.

Personally, I'm just excited at the chance to sprout what could be a very interesting line of seeds that could otherwise never had existed if not for the love of this community broadcast across so many countries.

However, I would love to hear more, specifically, about WHERE such testing can be done to identify some of the genetic markers we would need to, in order to understand what is taking place not only within this male - but also within it's filial generations.

This thread - was originally about the variations being given to the chem '91 cut and why that was happening. GIVEN that was the topic of this thread, I thought it most fitting to include this information here - ESPECIALLY given Tha Docta stating that Cob obviously had the legit '91 skunkVa cut when he worked his S1's.

Why all this negativity has to start - well, it's simple. Someone under the age of 18 stole mommies laptop...and needs to feed their internet ego because they are depressed and lonely in real life. It's called adolescence...it too shall pass.



dank.Frank

 

[GMT]

I wasn't going to contribute further to this thread, as I have already stated what I know to be fact. Therefore what else is there to contribute? But I'm going to add my opinions too.

Just to start, and to get out of the way, If my opinion disagreed with stickshift's, I can't think of anyone that I would turn to quicker to ask for a clarification. Stickshift (formerly known as kopite) will (when the mood takes him) find the latest or most relevant piece of documented scientific research going, and link you to the published paper. He wont add his view of it, just make you wade through it yourself, to see if you have the patience /ability to see the mistake you made. He has done that for me so many times, that one of the giants whose shoulders I consider myself to be standing on, is him. But he is not ashamed of being a grumpy old sod, and doesn't pull his punches at all. I consider that to be a long way off the type that can be found on the boards elsewhere. The kid looking to piss someone off to feel like he got one over on a main name. This thread has some great names in it, and there is a good point worth addressing here. Lets not see another golden thread get locked for the sake of personal ego.

Now back to the topic, yes there is always the chance of pollen contamination, but that's a boring solution to the problem. Lets take it as read that things are as they are believed to be. Because that opens a great door of speculation.

We know that the instruction set for male flowers lie in the autosome, if they didn't then female flowers could not be "reversed", forced to produce pollen. We know that when pollen/eggs are formed, errors can occur in the dna that they contain. I speculate that what defines the sex chromosomes, is the instruction sets to code for the proteins that silence these autosomal flower genes. The X will silence the male sets an the Y will silence the female sets. If a plant contains genes that contain errors in some of these areas, then it is a fairly easy picture to imagine, that the expression may not be entirely in accordance with what we would expect from the plants if we merely looked at the "shell shape" of the sex chromosomes.
Nor is it hard to picture that "surprise" being inherited in some of it's offspring. After all what else would happen? A miraculous repair?
I am all for experimenting with the unkown/unproven. I am playing with something I havent put on the boards myself as I can't be bothered dealing with the grief for it. But it interests me and is in this very area. But it is always more halpful to indentify the sex of a plant as its genetic content, and the expression of flowers as their role. Hence these plants would be females expressing male flowers, giving offspring that are females, some of which express female flowers, and some male flowers. This would make sense if crossing a female with one chain of dna which contains "errors" with another plant. As some would inherit the good chain and some the chain with errors in it. But again, I am only voicing personal speculations here. I think the real concern would be the "errors" getting out into the general populations gardens.


THM yes you could get the pollen tested, though the pollen would only contain one sex chromosome anyway. You would be better getting some other plant material tested that would contain both the chromosomes, so that there is no mistake and the test would only need doing on one sample. Any biology undergrad could do in on campus in their lunch hour if you live near a university.

 

[dank.frank]

Thank you GMT - I really don't want it to be some personal squabble. But I tend to get caught up when someone intentionally pushes my buttons for no other reason than to push more - without continuing to contribute to the fuller context.

I can 100% accept what is being said in regards to the plant being a mutation...

What you say, brings up a very interesting point. IF in fact, there is a mutational gene within the line that allowed the plant produce XX males - THEN, the error previously existed within Chem '91 - and within it's parents.

You make the statement about the "errors" getting into general population - but isn't that EXACTLY what has happened? OG, Diesel, Chem line family, (D, Sis, 3, 4, snowdawg etc..)

I agree - that it should not be surprising to see the mutation appear within the next filial generation, ie that by default it SHOULD resurface...however, this is the FIRST chem '91 male I have EVER heard of - and it is certainly not the first chem '91 s1's to be sorted. If this mutation does resurface - it is rather rare.

However, if we are to state a plant for some unknown reason has managed to mutate even one of it's offspring so that the gene sequencing expresses opposite it's coding - how would it be outside the realm of possibility, that after sorting many thousands of plants that have stemmed from that mutation - would IT NOT, be possible, that at some point in time - the genetic error COULD actually self-correct?

So what SHOULD be done here - is Chem '91 should be tested to see if it is in fact actually a female, xx, plant? After all - it was the passer of the mutation. If it is in fact an XX plant, then would it be fair to assume the mutation only exists within the seed sprouted that is showing a false expression? Or do you assume this is a latent coding with in the chem '91 because it likely was the result of, an XX "male"???

IF the last statement could be viewed as accurate, then this xx "male" would be the most true example of the "male" parent that was used to breed the chem '91...correct?

And yes, please, let's keep this civil. I'm all about trying to learn and advance my thinking - I just don't see the need to call names and cuss to get a point across.



dank.Frank

 

[dank.frank]

Also, if this coding mutation does not exist within the Chem '91 itself, is it a fair statement then to say that selfing actually scrambles DNA sequencing?



dank.Frank

 

[SupaFunk]

I've found this thread utterly captivating. To be fair, the sniping was tolerable too, because of the eloquent refereeing from GMT.

Long may this thread run.

 

[GMT]

I'm nervous about making these speculations, as I don't want to come across like I'm putting myself up as the gene guru here. Someone will drop a paper and throw everything I guess at out of the window. But if you're asking, and we're just shooting the shit ok here goes.

THEN, the error previously existed within Chem '91 - and within it's parents.

not necessarily, and probably not as if it did, then they would probably also have expressed male rather than tasty bud.

You make the statement about the "errors" getting into general population - but isn't that EXACTLY what has happened? OG, Diesel, Chem line family, (D, Sis, 3, 4, snowdawg etc..)

sadly yes. The number of "elite" clones that are renowned for expressing male flowers is an almost endless list. Though not exclusively male as in this case.

However, if we are to state a plant for some unknown reason has managed to mutate even one of it's offspring

We can leave speculation here, knowledge is restored. Not one, but all. Every offspring is a mutation and scrambling of it's parents. Unless you are using heavy equipment and cloning that is.

so that the gene sequencing expresses opposite it's coding

no, not opposite it's coding, that can never happen, but rather the coding has been altered so that it's coding now tells it either garbage or nothing where it should tell it something, or something where it should tell it nothing.

how would it be outside the realm of possibility, that after sorting many thousands of plants that have stemmed from that mutation - would IT NOT, be possible, that at some point in time - the genetic error COULD actually self-correct?

well its not quite as remote as the coding telling it to produce a daffodil instead, but, well, back to speculation. It would depend on the nature of what the error was. Lets say it was simply that something was halved in length and that that full previous length was required, then the doubling of that sequence is quite possible, and would restore the function. If it was a deletion, and the opposite chain of dna from the other parent contained the required sequence, then within some of the offspring, the problem could be rectified. If it was a deletion of an entire sequence, then that would be the only solution, and careful selection would be needed to breed the problem out. If it was a transcription error then it would not self correct except under exceptional random probability.
It also depends on where the problem lies. You see if it is an autosomal region, the problem can be overcome as stated. However if the problem has occurred within a sex chromosome, it can only be rectified by elimination that sex chromosome from future descendants. The likely hood of errors that occurred in duplicating the code rather than standard re-arrangements duplications, deletions etc being corrected by random chance is too slim to calculate. At least by me anyway. You are taking a book with a spelling mistake in it somewhere, and hoping that when someone who doesn't speak the language copies it out, they will accidentally make a mistake and write the correct spelling of that word in their copy. Only not one book, a library of books.

I don't doubt that chem 91 is a female in the true sense of the word. Just because an error occurred in one of its seeds, does not mean that the parent of that seed also had the same error. Though I have always known of chem as being a plant that does indeed throw out intersexed flowers. Therefore the plant must itself have some "errors" or intersexed tendencies (however you see those. I call them errors as they are not pure in my mind, but that can equally be due to insufficient evolution rather than having evolved fully and then errors occurring afterwards). This latest error may simply have compounded those other "errors" and produced a plant that not only throws male flowers on a female plant, but now no longer produced the female flowers on the female plant leaving only the male flowers to express.

Also, if this coding mutation does not exist within the Chem '91 itself, is it a fair statement then to say that selfing actually scrambles DNA sequencing?

to a certain extent yes, but only normally to the standard limits of meiosis and not beyond that. While it wont strengthen a genome in the way that breeding normally would strengthen a population, it shouldn't hurt it any more than the initial weakness of the parent used (outside of the risks of mutations popping up as can in any single breeding event).


Sorry I typed that with a broken finger on a keyboard that has sticky keys into a box not large enough to re-read it at a decent pace. So if you spot omissions of words or letter I miss or haven't yet corrected, forgive me

 

[The Hummus Monk]

Forgiven!

 

[dank.frank]

GMT - I'm re-reading your post - a couple of times. I think I'll break it down in the morning and get a response in.

I'm cool with ShiftStick - all is forgotten - let's learn more about this plant we all love. I'm not one to hold a grudge - life is too short to waste energy on negativity!!



dank.Frank

 

[GMT]

OOO don't do that , you'll spot all the typo's spelling errors, poor grammar and omissions that I've been too lazy to go through and correct.

 

[dank.frank]

not necessarily, and probably not as if it did, then they would probably also have expressed male rather than tasty bud.
sadly yes. The number of "elite" clones that are renowned for expressing male flowers is an almost endless list. Though not exclusively male as in this case.

I don't doubt that chem 91 is a female in the true sense of the word. Just because an error occurred in one of its seeds, does not mean that the parent of that seed also had the same error... This latest error may simply have compounded those other "errors" and produced a plant that not only throws male flowers on a female plant, but now no longer produced the female flowers on the female plant leaving only the male flowers to express.

In this sense, would that not be a sort of the plant coming full circle, even on a mutation level. The compounding of errors at some point could in theory be auto correction ... if an s1 is fully xx and yet some how the plant has managed to delete the female x and leaving only...

Even in error - that means that SOME part of a male trait makes it through / past the S1 process - even if in error that began as late flower hermaphrodites, is that not a residual impact from a male trait passing through the xx process? Or would you simply say that the hermi expressions in general on an xx plant are a genetic coding error??

It is often suggested that landrace cannabis can self pollinate in nature, when simply left to flower past maturity, to ensure it's own survival, outside the presence of a male. Perhaps, the hermi trait is not an error, but an expression / trait of more "wild" cannabis plants that were never fully commercialized via genetic selection towards producers desires...

no, not opposite it's coding, that can never happen, but rather the coding has been altered so that it's coding now tells it either garbage or nothing where it should tell it something, or something where it should tell it nothing.

So then a genetic coding that is xx, that is telling it, by compounded error that it is fully y, or because the x has be silenced - this plant is "presenting" itself by some massive harmony of genetic error - as a male...

well its not quite as remote as the coding telling it to produce a daffodil instead, but, well, back to speculation. It would depend on the nature of what the error was. Lets say it was simply that something was halved in length and that that full previous length was required, then the doubling of that sequence is quite possible, and would restore the function. If it was a deletion, and the opposite chain of dna from the other parent contained the required sequence, then within some of the offspring, the problem could be rectified. If it was a deletion of an entire sequence, then that would be the only solution, and careful selection would be needed to breed the problem out. If it was a transcription error then it would not self correct except under exceptional random probability.

BUT ... it is POSSIBLE. Again, even if in compounded error or mutation, the plant by defect has auto-corrected in, this sense to give rise to a male for the sake of population survival.

It also depends on where the problem lies. You see if it is an autosomal region, the problem can be overcome as stated. However if the problem has occurred within a sex chromosome, it can only be rectified by elimination that sex chromosome from future descendants. The likely hood of errors that occurred in duplicating the code rather than standard re-arrangements duplications, deletions etc being corrected by random chance is too slim to calculate. At least by me anyway. You are taking a book with a spelling mistake in it somewhere, and hoping that when someone who doesn't speak the language copies it out, they will accidentally make a mistake and write the correct spelling of that word in their copy. Only not one book, a library of books.

But again, possible. In many various scenarios. Possible.

Which brings me back to my point about how VERY interesting and exciting this plant is. Not only is it "possible" - but, here you have it right before your very eyes - it is ENTIRELY possible, because it has happened. SO, the goal of science should be to try and understand it to the fullest extent...not to apply what is known for the sake of putting a "period" on it neatly, only to say this is all that can happen...but rather to apply what we know is possible to the yet unseen so that we can learn more...THAT is science.

Sorry I typed that with a broken finger

Hope your finger heals quickly!!! Good vibes!



dank.Frank

 

[GMT]

In this sense, would that not be a sort of the plant coming full circle, even on a mutation level.

no. Full circle would be back to a well behaved girl

The compounding of errors at some point could in theory be auto correction ...

no the compound interest on your mortgage doesn't result in the bank paying your loan off for you, just the opposite.
As more and more errors accumulate, the problem gets worse. The only way to correct them, is through out crossing and ultimately losing some of the desirable characteristics along with the undesirable ones, unless you have access to Genetic engineering and a multi million dollar budget.

if an s1 is fully xx and yet some how the plant has managed to delete the female x and leaving only...

I doubt the whole of the X chromosome is missing on either, never mind on both sides of the dna chains. Just that the very long codes necessary for the production of silencing instructions, have been corrupted in some way. In addition the instructions contained within the autosome to produce flowers (or the protein to stimulate the production of flowers) have also been corrupted. So a problem followed by another problem equals 2 problems rather than no problems.

Even in error - that means that SOME part of a male trait makes it through / past the S1 process -

yes, as in every "healthy" (controvertial subject with its own threads) female has the instruction sets to code for male flower production contained in the autosome. The Sex chromosomes will not determine the content of the autosome.

even if in error that began as late flower hermaphrodites, is that not a residual impact from a male trait passing through the xx process? Or would you simply say that the hermi expressions in general on an xx plant are a genetic coding error??

Well there are 2 options here.
1. In some cases the line has been domesticated, and the intersexed flower trait has been bred out. Therefore when they express intersexed flowers, we can say, that something has gone wrong, and therefore condense the statement into "contains errors".
2. In other cases, the plants have yet to have this work done, and so the intersexed trait may still exist in the line. These are undesirable traits even when the individual plant is desirable. Therefore I still tend to use the term unhealthy, as the genetic content has not reached the point where is it entirely what we want. Technically I am wrong in saying that (in that particular instance), but I discuss the finer points so rarely, that it normally makes no difference to the content of what I'm saying.

is often suggested that landrace cannabis can self pollinate in nature, when simply left to flower past maturity, to ensure it's own survival, outside the presence of a male. Perhaps, the hermi trait is not an error, but an expression / trait of more "wild" cannabis plants that were never fully commercialized via genetic selection towards producers desires...

Yeah I tried to find that part of one of my previous posts, where I included that, but couldn't find it, so just one of those things I missed I'm afraid. I included it in point 2 above just to clarify.

So then a genetic coding that is xx, that is telling it, by compounded error that it is fully y,

NO NO. Perhaps not obvious to the naked eye in that example, but the offspring would suffer for the error. A Y and a sick X are very different things.

or because the x has be silenced - this plant is "presenting" itself by some massive harmony of genetic error - as a male...

By "the X that is silenced", I take it you mean the errors have prevented the X from working in it's usual manner. Then yes, those errors, together with the new errors in the autosome, have resulted in that phenomenon. Highly unusual.

BUT ... it is POSSIBLE. Again, even if in compounded error or mutation, the plant by defect has auto-corrected in, this sense to give rise to a male for the sake of population survival.

No, absolutely not. A Y is very different from a sick X.
It's like saying that because mankind has evolved from sea creatures, that it is possible by mutation for a sea creature to give birth to a man. It ignores all of the necessary steps inbetween.

Which brings me back to my point about how VERY interesting and exciting this plant is. Not only is it "possible" - but, here you have it right before your very eyes - it is ENTIRELY possible, because it has happened.

I'm not sure what it is that you believe has happened? It sounds like you think the female has become male, which is not possible. It is just very very sick

SO, the goal of science should be to try and understand it to the fullest extent...not to apply what is known for the sake of putting a "period" on it neatly, only to say this is all that can happen...but rather to apply what we know is possible to the yet unseen so that we can learn more...THAT is science.

yes, but there is only so many times you can throw things off a cliff edge and say, "yes it did the same thing that time, but we need to learn more so lets keep throwing things off to see if they all fall" before you accept what it is that gravity is going to do.

There are experiemtns that could be done with that plant that would be interesting, and would confirm (I believe) everything I have said. Just as I am hoping to find an intersexed plant within one of a few lines that I am playing with at the moment so that I can play with swapping out both sex chromosomes, to see if the problem persists within the autosome. As that would tell me a lot. But only about that line.

Hope your finger heals quickly!!! Good vibes!



dank.Frank

Thanks

 

[dank.frank]

I don't think anything outside of the chance of random possibility has happened. IE that being, a female that has issues, passed that issue x10 to the point no trace of a female has been left...that is not to say the plant would or could be genetically male - only that the defect(s) it has genetically, are in some way allowing to behave as one...

Is all I think happened...

But it think the opportunity to see what such a plant does - vs saying, throwing it out - well, I can't see the harm in trying to see what the filial offspring produce. IN THEORY - if this plant was fully female, it would NOT be possible to produce offspring that were male - yet is has. So again, I find it interesting.

Perhaps, as was suggest in one of Tom's posts - if he didn't trust the source of the pollen, he'd suggest a contamination had occurred within the pollen, ie a true male contributor from another plant.

But I don't think that is what happened here, honestly. Instead we have a plant "behaving" as if it is fully male from what were S1 seeds...

I know it's not the first time that has happened with a seed line, I just haven't heard of such within Chem '91 yet...



dank.Frank

 

[Rumblefish]

Great read fella's although at 6.00 am its a bit hard to get my head around...need coffee

 

[stickshift]

It is often suggested that landrace cannabis can self pollinate in nature, when simply left to flower past maturity, to ensure it's own survival, outside the presence of a male. Perhaps, the hermi trait is not an error, but an expression / trait of more "wild" cannabis plants that were never fully commercialized via genetic selection towards producers desires...

They self pollinate as they are monoecious specimens, I prefer dioecious plants. If you are breeding with landraces IMO these should be removed (at least at some point, but some would argue with the where and whens). The "male" plant is only showing as a "male" and not as a monoecious morph, esp as The hummus monk has stated it was stressed etc and it stayed in the same morph.
It is evident that whatever triggers it to produce stamens is carried to the progeny again as stated by the hummus monk, be that a high ethylene production via an extremely low stress resistance level or ethylene perception and production (I think currently ethylene signalling is thought to be molecules binded to their receptors activates the response) I don't know! but it certainly seems it's passed and would seem it's that pathway that's a prob, and as GMT has stated it is the result of damaged DNA IMO.