Heritability of Intersex Traits

[Tom Hill]

Nice post GMT,

I just feel it may not be wise to apply rules across the board so to speak, and it is my lack of experience that has me attempting to error on the side of caution. This is very much line dependent too in my opinion. I am mostly speaking and thinking of existing pure lines here. If we however were talking about creating/introducing new lines, I can see myself very likely arguing the other side of the coin, though I know many would disagree, hehe. -Tom

 

[englishrick]

Hi Rick.
hermaphrodites are present as an earlier stage of evolution. Therefore to say that it is caused by the "degeneration" of Y, is actually getting it backwards. The process by which Y "degenerates" is the very process which eliminates the hermaphrodite tendencies. This "degeneration" rather than being what it sounds like, is actually a beneficial process for what we are looking for (which is a subjective value judgement, which I know some people, for instance Tom, would disagree with me on). In practice both sides of the arguement are correct for different desires of the grower. You may have seen a couple of us talk about the ratchet theory. This theory attempts to explain why and how the Y chromosome becomes the Y chromosome which is "missing" one leg of the X. This lost info is what causes the plant to lose its intersex traits as it is the instructions to make female pistils etc that is "lost" from its set of instructions. What happens is as the dna is rearranging itself at the point of creating the haploid cells to be passed on, some of the info is moved from one chromosome to the one next to it, leaving less info in the first and shortening its relative length. There are other theories, however to me, this is the easiest to immagine happening. So as Y becomes shorter and contains less info (is that really degeneration or is that evolution?) the plants become more stable in their relative sexual assignments. Now some of the info may be lost altogether and some simply moved. This is where Tom and I differ in our opinions. To guys like Tom who are looking to preserve the plant in its truest state, its like turning wolves into yorkshire terriers. However to guys like me, it prevents your crop from being ruined. Tom may say its ruined before you plant the seeds I dont know, it isn't right for me to talk for Tom really. Thereagain, I am an indoor pollen chucker with very limited space and far less experience, and Tom has all the experience and space he needs. So really its a case of different horses for different courses and levels of horsemanship.
The point is that the degeneration of Y is not so much a degeneration as an alteration which changes its purpose of existence. And it is a natural evolution which our own species has almost completed (very few hermaphroditic people being born these days though it does still happen). Some of us want to speed this process up, some are concerned that doing that may cause us to lose out on important dna sequences. I figure so long as both camps are safe and secure and working away, everyone gets the best of both worlds and can choose what they grow depending on their circumstances.
Epigenetics is an important factor to bring into this discussion though you are right. As it may well be that a plant which doesn't show its intersex traits, may well contain them, but have them (rather than removed from the Y (or Y's info moved from the X)) those genes may well be silinced by rna, which is the epigenetic effects of its own experiences while forming as a seed and while being grown by the grower. So we not only have to consider the dna but also the evolution of rna. If a plant is exposed to a light leek, its isnt so much a case of "does the genes contain hermie genes?" but rather "will the rna under these circumstances, switch the intersex genes on?".
I agree entirely that it all depends on your target environment.

"hermaphrodites are present as an earlier stage of evolution",,,,,,,,,,,,...

"What happens is as the dna is rearranging itself at the point of creating the haploid cells to be passed on, some of the info is moved from one chromosome to the one next to it...,,,,,,,So, Y becomes shorter and contains less info ,,,,,BUT ,,,,,,,,,"(is that really degeneration or is that evolution?)".....


i now this might be a silly thing to say ,,,but,,,its sounds like YY could be the next stage...i dont like the sound of that,,,,,im not a massive fan of Sasauge fest`s



"The point is that the degeneration of Y is not so much a degeneration as an alteration which changes its purpose of existence."


"This "degeneration" rather than being what it sounds like, is actually a beneficial process for what we are looking for (which is a subjective value judgement, which I know some people, for instance Tom, would disagree with me on). In practice both sides of the arguement are correct for different desires of the grower",,,,,,,


what your talkin about sounds like "DRIFT",,,,loosing the genes of the past is crazy,,,,, imo,,,,,,,im fighting the DRIFT in Hetero plants.......i need big numbers to catch the allels codes suited for my for my enviroment and taste
1 thing i dont understand IS......you said tom is against Y degradation,,,,,but it sounds like tom is activly degrading the Y by exposing the intersexed plants and removing them from the line.......am i wrong,????,,,please correct me


Epigenetics

what can i say,,,,,,,this is a crazy subject,,,,it could be messin with us right now,,,,an its all our enviroments fault

 

[JWP]

Gday all,

Rick as far as a line goes it isnt degeneration it is evolution. But thats all it should ever be, a line or a parramiter for some lines. Something that can be marketed. A novelty, like fem beans.

As much diversity as possible should be kept for global pools. Toms right, if we chop down all the trees what will be left for our children to chop? The pool will be like christmas island epecialy when you consider what a small percentage of a pool may be TF lol

The point is that the degeneration of Y is not so much a degeneration as an alteration which changes its purpose of existence. And it is a natural evolution which our own species has almost completed (very few hermaphroditic people being born these days though it does still happen). Some of us want to speed this process up, some are concerned that doing that may cause us to lose out on important dna sequences.

I'm not so sure. Given how todays technology allows us to travel faster to further away places coupled with the fact that the vast majority dont have axx to this it is possible that some time in the future (when the majority of races are more intermingled) the freequency of hermaphroditic people could increase. Especialy if hermaphroditic dominance fell into an isolated population. The statement could be true if a time scale were defined for our evolution.

The same is true for our plants. How long is this peice of string? Time its so complex. I wouldnt worry to much about detruction of an isolated or global pool. Diversity after all is only a cross away. Its like nature hits the reset button each time. Built in self preservation.

Man now i have two conflicting views. But both seem logical. Maybe it is best to be cautious.


Benji, i would say the function of the gene is the same. Expression is the only variable. The fact that a plant expresses this gene put it in a class all of its own.
If the dominance of the gene isnt expressed in the female progeny but is in the male parents i would believe the mother to be a dominant TF.
In any case its not the males or females responsable for the expression rather the dominant 3rd class (intersexed plants).
But to answer your question you would have to assume it were the male that it came from in this case.

Thats just a calculated assumption though, like most things i say


Edit: ohh and what i wanted to say before i got destracted by the thread lol.

Beating mango trees seems like a compleetly logical thing to do. Intension does play a big part in our reality. Its been proven countless times with random number generators.
Take the double slit experiment. The mango tree only extists because we observe it. Is it that much of a strech to believe we can also decide the way it exists?

 

[GreenintheThumb]

As much diversity as possible should be kept for global pools.

Well...we agree on this much. Course I'd say all pools.

I wouldnt worry to much about detruction of an isolated or global pool. Diversity after all is only a cross away. Its like nature hits the reset button each time. Built in self preservation.

If you don't think we've lost any genes in the last 40 years and you're not at all concerned about it I'd suggest you don't post in the breeder's forum.

Beating mango trees seems like a compleetly logical thing to do. Intension does play a big part in our reality. Its been proven countless times with random number generators.
Take the double slit experiment. The mango tree only extists because we observe it. Is it that much of a strech to believe we can also decide the way it exists?

And now I realize you are retarded. You strike me as someone who watched What The Bleep Do We Know and didn't recognize it as pseudoscience bullshit with an agenda.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

i now this might be a silly thing to say ,,,but,,,its sounds like YY could be the next stage...i dont like the sound of that,,,,,im not a massive fan of Sasauge fest`s

Do you ever know what you're talking about? YY is the next stage of what? How are we going to get YYs?

what your talkin about sounds like "DRIFT",,,,loosing the genes of the past is crazy,,,,, imo,,,,,,,im fighting the DRIFT in Hetero plants.......i need big numbers to catch the allels codes suited for my for my enviroment and taste
1 thing i dont understand IS......you said tom is against Y degradation,,,,,but it sounds like tom is activly degrading the Y by exposing the intersexed plants and removing them from the line.......am i wrong,????,,,please correct me

It's so hard to correct you. You lack a foundation of the most basic understanding of these subjects. You often confuse laymen terms with proper scientific ones and I can't see you doing anything but clouding the issue for others. I'm sorry Rick, but basically every post you make I just shake my head and stare at it for about half an hour trying to understand what's going on in your head.

How do you think that killing intersexed plants is degrading the Y chromosome? Do you even understand what the term degrading means in a genetic sense?

I'm not trying to be rude, Rick but I think you should post less and certainly reread your messages and see if they even make sense before posting.

 

[JWP]

If you don't think we've lost any genes in the last 40 years and you're not at all concerned about it I'd suggest you don't post in the breeder's forum.

Of course its a concern but how much. How much has been lost? .001% ? 10% ? Who can answer that?
Who is to say that what you belive is lost isnt lost rather just hidden away. Then the loss would be nullified if reintroduced into the global pool.

And it isnt pseudoscience, its pop science now.
Come on man have a laugh. I bet you think im in there beating my plants now damanding bigger frostier buds.

Who died and made you king? You should lay off rick. Do you know all that is to be known? Until then just have a smoke and relax.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

If a gene is lost then how can we reintroduce it anywhere? When genes are lost that doesn't mean they're lost like your keys. It means they're extinct. Sure, it'll help to make selections in the region of origin but we can't select what's no longer available. Maybe your solution is to return them to the land of origin and wait for the mutations that originated the traits we covet to happen all over again? Well I don't have millions of plants and thousands of years so that's not really an option.

As far as how much has been lost, well I'm sad to say we'll never know. Rest assured it's over .001% and likely greater than 10%

I'm not king, I don't know that much. The frustrating thing is how much more I seem to know than most members on here. Don't get it twisted, I know my place; I come here to learn more than teach. As far as Rick, well, I've already got pms thanking me for trying to get through to him. Certainly I'm not alone in that respect. And I'm the one who started this thread, I'll feel free to speak my mind in it and try to further the discussion. And if everyone waited until knowing everything before posting this forum wouldn't exist. Take Care.

 

[JWP]

To say with any certainty that a gene is lost first you would have know the total that could be lost. Then you would have to prove that it is extinct. You know you cant do that and any guess at a percentage lost is just a guess. An assumption, pseudoscience as you put it.

If i were to have a shot at a solution it would be the opposite putting them back in their natural enviroment. I would put them in as many enviroments as possible. Surely this would produce more mutations.

When you consider that 20 or 30 years ago we didnt even know we could clone a plant. You would have to think the future is much brighter than we can tell. Techniques like reversing plants to judge quallites. Then stacking these by having the trait we are after dominant in the male and female makes me think that thousands of years of evolution are no longer needed.
The future is bright.

Good thread btw. Lot of good info

 

[GMT]

When talking about losing genes and the difference that genes make in the final out come, or the percentages of genes that could be lost before we notice it having a negative effect, I guess it's important to remember that we are 97% bannana and 99.9% ape in terms of our genetic makeup. The diff between races is miniscule, and I was watching a study on epigentics concentrating on identical twins and the differences in their appearance and rates of suffering (or not!) from the same genetically inherrited diseases. I'm actually starting to think that we can never really know much about the gentics of our plants without a lab, and what we study is the epigentic expression or phenotypes witnessed within certain environments. It is highly likely that a gene which in one environment will perform the same function as a different gene yet in a different environment their differences will become apparent. The most obvious example of that being the famous "light leek turned my plants hermie" line.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

I think the numbers are 60% banana and 98% ape. Keep in mind most DNA is involved in production of proteins, enzymes for creating or breaking down sugars, for building cellular structures and processes, etc. etc. We're not giant humanoid bananas...although I am wearing pajamas.

 

[kopite]

The frustrating thing is how much more I seem to know than most members on here

its one thing that really annoys me... why is no breeder resident here to advise us ? SamS drops in from time to time and TomH has been active here and gives his opinions but so many seem to shy away... I presume this is therefore now left to "mentors"

Kopite

 

[englishrick]

Do you ever know what you're talking about? YY is the next stage of what? How are we going to get YYs?.

seriously Green,,,,,,thankyou for replying to my posts,,,please let me explain mysellf....

i made the YY comment in reply to what GMT said.. "Intersexed plants come EARLYER in evoloution"......i have a feelin that selective breeding and the enviroment at the time can change everything.......it seems to me anything could be the "NEXT STAGE" .....im thinkin evoloution has no timeline...epigenics rules expreshion even inheritance,,,,le mark was not far off,,,,,evoloution itself is a result of enviromental pressure, gene manipulation and especialy selective breeding

"The first carbonaria morph was recorded by Edleston in Manchester in 1848, and over the subsequent years it increased in frequency. Predation experiments, particularly by Bernard Kettlewell, established that the agent of selection was birds who preyed on the morpha carbonaria morph."

is it posible to change the eviromental pressure and stop the Y degrading?

How do you think that killing intersexed plants is degrading the Y chromosome? Do you even understand what the term degrading means in a genetic sense?

tell .

sorry guys i must be trippin....i thought GMT said when the Y degrades BYE BYE intersexed plants....it made me think that intersexed plants simply have a longer leg,,,,,i emagine that exposing the intersexed plants is virtualy like selectively breeding for the shorter leg







I'm not trying to be rude, Rick but I think you should post less and certainly reread your messages and see if they even make sense before posting

its cool man,,,your doing me a favour,,,,you know it,,i know it,,,,thanks for it

 

[GreenintheThumb]

its one thing that really annoys me... why is no breeder resident here to advise us ? SamS drops in from time to time and TomH has been active here and gives his opinions but so many seem to shy away... I presume this is therefore now left to "mentors"

Kopite

Yeah, Tom's been towing the line for a minute now. We need more honest and open breeders to step forward and share information with this community. It's the only way to grow our knowledge. I think it's a shame so many shy away. I'm never sure if they're all too busy or they have nothing of value to add to the conversation. I'm sad to say I'm starting to believe it's the latter. And as far as I can remember this breeder forum has been devoid of anything too interesting for a few years. Thanks for doing your part to make it better Kopite. Take care.

Rick- Back again, so soon. Hahahah, I kid; you did help clarify your post. So GMT says hermies come earlier in evolution and somehow this makes you believe that YYs are the "next stage" whatever abstract idea that is....Well doesn't the historical evidence show that hermies were prevalent in plants in years forgotten (still are, really; but many have evolved beyond this)? What evidence is there of plants evolving into a YY situation? I still don't understand how the Y "degraded" when it's a bigger chromosome with respect to cannabis...

You know the human Y chromosome is also degrading. Do you consider the next step in humans to also be YY? Let me recommend Y The Last Man. Pretty good comic, it's all about the destruction of the Y chromosome and a special individual who's the last man on earth. It's a creepy Earth where women rule, who would want to live through that? But if the situation was involving cannabis I suppose I'd love it. Now back to Bananas in Pajamas.

 

[GMT]

Hi Green, the numbers were only to make a point, they weren't meant to be exact sorry.
On the other hand, the Y is the shorter in length rather than being "bigger". I think we need to move away from using the term degrading when discussing the Y chrom, and start to use something along the lines of "reducing in content". We can never get to the point that this becomes unhealthy, at least nature can't, I guess we could if we tried. At the point that more is being moved out of Y that it leaves the males at a disadvantage, theory would state that the plants holding "bigger Ys" would out perform and therefore out breed the unhealthy ones over time.

On the breeder front, we had a superb source of info as far as genetics goes in Charles, but after he was attacked by a couple of the big name breeders and all his work and posts in the thread was deleted by admin for making their salesmen look bad, he decided it wasn't really worth his time being here. He still pops in from time to time, but tends to keep things to PMs. Guys like Tom and Kopite who have years of experience and are willing to put their time into these threads are worth their weight in gold. I find a new way of looking at things and something new to research every week reading these threads.

Oh and Rick, yep quite right, hermy males contain more info in their Y than non hermy males in some circumstances, in others the non hermies havent turned those genes on, and in some non hermies they simply dont have them anymore. In hermie females its either the case of not having the male genes turned on or them not being present, though since no one has reported a girl who can't be reversed using chems, it stands to reason that at the moment, it is mainly the former.

 

[JWP]

Charles & suzycremecheese always made me see things from a different perspective. Sadly i dont see either around much anymore.

 

[Tom Hill]

Tom etc, "man, look at this fuggin bum in his holy friggen socks"

Charles, "Hmm, it seems this gentleman is experiencing a temporary loss of knitting"

lol

I dig Charles' input each and every time, and when he spanks folks he does it gently. I also understand where others have gotten so frustrated with the boards that they resort to speaking down to folks and only pipe up with short jabs from time to time. Some have become so hardened in this way that they no longer recognize when they've met a peer, and dismiss them.

You know guys every time we dare to open our mouths we risk our peers to telling us we're full of crap - this is the price of admission. And indeed we may need accept the possibility that we are full of it. But, if we care, if we truly care, we'll not sit around on the sidelines simply to preserve our egos and risk nothing. We can't really do that and claim to care about the outcome. Thank you all, sincerely, with the guts to speak -right or wrong- your minds, you all are pot-stars in my opinion - each and every one of you. -T

 

[englishrick]

Rick- Back again, so soon. Hahahah, I kid; you did help clarify your post. So GMT says hermies come earlier in evolution and somehow this makes you believe that YYs are the "next stage" whatever abstract idea that is....Well doesn't the historical evidence show that hermies were prevalent in plants in years forgotten (still are, really; but many have evolved beyond this)? What evidence is there of plants evolving into a YY situation? I still don't understand how the Y "degraded" when it's a bigger chromosome with respect to cannabis...

your the teachers to me,,green,GMT,Tom,Kopite,amoril, an the rest,,,,,,i might be a kid in the head, an i admit that,,....most peeps here are young in the head,,....that leave you dudes as the responcable adults.....in most ways i dont think you guys need the breeders you yern for,,,maybe thats why they aint here.....+ the books and papers you guys read allmost seem beyond them,,,,the books and papers i read seem beyond them,,,"not like i understand them",,but i try

anyways..

my point sill stands up for me,,,,YY is a direction that could be possible given the right agent of selection!, .......imo everything is dependent on selection and enviroment,,,,,,,,,,,,,"The Next Stage" could be anything you want it to be.............it could be anything the agent of selection and enviroment allows...


after reading what GMT said,,,,,,,,,,,,in my mind, hermis are an important part of development in "The Preveious Stage",,,,,XX must have been the norm till transpoons and epigenics messed with the whole expreshion thing...im guessing this constant morph must have caused the Dispersement in the leg...i cant help but think this is epigenics at work,,,

 

[englishrick]

I still don't understand how the Y "degraded" when it's a bigger chromosome with respect to cannabis...

lol....this is the same sorta question i would ask........but im guessing the Y is getting bigger because the the Y actualy used to be an X an the leg`s Dispersement is adding to the Y

think about the lads who cant understand your language,,,,i chat for the kids in bottom class,,,im the 1 who spends time with the lads who are behind,,,,im like a buffer in your PM box,

 

[GreenintheThumb]

On the other hand, the Y is the shorter in length rather than being "bigger".

Hmmm, thought I read that the male sex chromosome in cannabis was larger/longer. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

I think we need to move away from using the term degrading when discussing the Y chrom, and start to use something along the lines of "reducing in content". We can never get to the point that this becomes unhealthy, at least nature can't, I guess we could if we tried. At the point that more is being moved out of Y that it leaves the males at a disadvantage, theory would state that the plants holding "bigger Ys" would out perform and therefore out breed the unhealthy ones over time.

Couldn't some of the extra info in the Ys be deleterious and cause damage and therefore couldn't a smaller Y be out performing large ones?

On the breeder front, we had a superb source of info as far as genetics goes in Charles, but after he was attacked by a couple of the big name breeders and all his work and posts in the thread was deleted by admin for making their salesmen look bad, he decided it wasn't really worth his time being here. He still pops in from time to time, but tends to keep things to PMs. Guys like Tom and Kopite who have years of experience and are willing to put their time into these threads are worth their weight in gold. I find a new way of looking at things and something new to research every week reading these threads.

Yeah when I got back online I figured nothing had really happened since I stopped visiting. Wish I had a chance to chat up Charles. PM me some more info if you wish, I hadn't even heard of him.

Oh and Rick, yep quite right, hermy males contain more info in their Y than non hermy males in some circumstances, in others the non hermies havent turned those genes on, and in some non hermies they simply dont have them anymore. In hermie females its either the case of not having the male genes turned on or them not being present, though since no one has reported a girl who can't be reversed using chems, it stands to reason that at the moment, it is mainly the former.

How do you know that the intersex genes aren't autosomal? Not sure where you have deduced all this from. Do you differentiate between hermies and other intersex plants or do you use the terms synonymous. I guess I think of hermies as plants that show opposite flowers no matter the environment and I call intersex plants ones that will reverse in times of stress or perhaps very late in the flowering cycle. Never been sure if these are two different circumstances or if this is all the same thing occurring on a continuum. In fact, I've never read anything about it. Haven't there been some studies on this in hemp? Or even a similar dioecious/monoecious flowering plants?

Also hasn't Sam mentioned some plants he couldn't get to reverse?

 

[GreenintheThumb]

my point sill stands up for me,,,,YY is a direction that could be possible given the right agent of selection!, .......imo everything is dependent on selection and enviroment,,,,,,,,,,,,,"The Next Stage" could be anything you want it to be.............it could be anything the agent of selection and enviroment allows...

Goodness that's a lot of language I find hard to know for sure I stand on firm ground with. The way you mentioned YYs as the next stage I thought you meant populations were naturally slowly moving towards. Which I assume we can all agree isn't really happening. However, YYs theoretically could be made. I publicly asked Sam to self his reversed male or outcross it to a different male just to see what happens. Other breeders have some experience on the subject but I suppose this is truly novel research in respect to cannabis and everything can't be public just yet.

after reading what GMT said,,,,,,,,,,,,in my mind, hermis are an important part of development in "The Preveious Stage",,,,,XX must have been the norm till transpoons and epigenics messed with the whole expreshion thing...im guessing this constant morph must have caused the Dispersement in the leg...i cant help but think this is epigenics at work,,,

How much are the breeders of other species concerned with epigenetics? I think epigenetics should be its own thread. We're getting off topic. Also Rick can't you at least google some of these terms and start spelling them right. It takes an extra five minutes but it helps.