Originally Posted by Natural high
I'm struggling with whether you fully understand what the terms homozygous and heterozygous mean.
Homozygous - both alleles are the same for any gene loci, eg AA, or BB
Heterozygous - each allele is different for any gene loci, eg Aa or Bb
Thus homozygous AA x homozygous aa = heterozygous Aa
@naturalhigh Yes, I understand the difference. You were correct, my apologies for the earlier reply. I was distracted by a family issue concerning a step child, cops and cannabis. (The lawyer I hired has already fixed the issue in our favor!)
I noticed when going back over my chart that I hadn't gone far enough into the complexity of cannabis breeding and there were some discrepancies that needed fixed. The chart was meant as a jumping off point for where cannabis breeding starts, rather than a placement of where cannabis breeding is. According to genetic data most breeders aren't breeding hybrids or even polyhybrids as it would have led people to believe, but rather multi polyhybrids.
It is important to be absolutely accurate with scientific terminology and nomenclature. I'm just as guilty as others for purposefully self rationalizing the discrepancies between nomenclature and cannabis breeding.
Most people in the sciences, and elsewhere, will ignore us if we call something an F1 when they have to go searching through 8 different phenotypes to find the one we are advertising. However, if we are clearly labeling it as a cross of two multi polyhybrids, which they are, then they know to not expect any stability to the strain line. There is no nomenclature designation for polyhybrids or multi polyhybrids, because in all other plant breeding a multi polyhybrid plant line would be considered too unstable and would be culled or line bred for dozens of generations until it was stable. Because there is no adequate nomenclature it's important to remember that we're in the proposal and negotiations phase of settling new nomenclature, rather than in the settled nomenclature phase.
Just as before, alert me if any discrepancies are noticed in the above chart.
@troutman "You'll find one better than the rest I think." This characteristic has been explained with the variability of the environment in most cases.
For our hypothetical food crop to be as variable as our multi polyhybrid cannabis you'd need to plant seeds from a variety and get completely different tasting, growing and maturing tomatoes, e.g. very tart, very sweet, very sour, and completely bland, along with deterministic, non deterministic and something in between for growth profiles, and widely varied maturation rates.
This isn't what we get with vegetable seeds though, unless you find a rare mutation or have really bad luck which delivered you a seed with tons of double recessives hidden in the line.
The core of the problem being hashed out along side the nomenclature issue, is that cannabis in it's current form is tremendously unstable and variable. Breeders are saying "You'll get one of these 2 or 3 phenotypes, because it's an "F1 hybrid" except that according to genetic data, or close recorded phenotypic data, you're actually getting 8-12 phenotypes for the selected traits and it's a multi polyhybrid. When the breeders are asked why they are being deceitful they just reply that "It must be your technique," or "that's just the way cannabis is," which are both inaccurate and dishonest. Some of us have learned to know what to look for in finding more stable genetics in the swamp of strains, but no one should have to. A customer should be able to buy an "H1 hybrid" knowing it's a swamp of genetics, and they should be able to require breeders to produce more stable lines, with the facts on their side, if they want to be charged larger prices. Breeders that do produce stable lines with desired traits should be able to charge a premium, because their lines have been inbred to the point that there is only one major phenotype with very low variability. None of this can happen while we allow breeders to mislabel crosses with anything that sounds like good public relations. Not to be forgotten, there are also many breeders out there that would genuinely like to let buyers know that their genetics have only reached a certain degree of stability without saying "We have no idea what we've sold you", but the current nomenclature doesn't allow for that. If they're given the nomenclature of "H" to designate a multi polyhybrid they'll use it.
The state of cannabis, as it is, amounts to buying a children's book and having the story turn into an armpit hair fetish story 2 pages in. Scientists are starting to breed and genome test strains that are the equivalent of a children's book that matches the book's summary of a happy ending exactly. Are more buyers going to throng to the armpit hair fetish strain or the happy ending strain?
Sticking with our analogy, scientists are currently saying "You need to not put that porno book in the porno section, so we can all go smoke a joint together" and too many in cannabis culture are saying "I'll put my books wherever I damn well please," except we're missing the point that we don't own the bookstore, just a few books we're trying to trade or sell, and we can be easily out competed in emerging markets.