Males are they even needed?

[GMT]

To be honest I left this for Sam to explain, as its his thread, but he can jump in and correct any errors he feels I make here.
I just did a couple of PMS explaining this, so I can paste the info in.

Dominant and recessive has nothing to do with how frequently they are passed down, but rather their relationship in the expression.
X and y will be passed from a male at 50:50 ratios, but the dominance of the Y chromosome means that if it is present, the plant will express male flowers and be a male plant. The x is recessive. If two x's are the only sex chromosomes present, then the plant will be female. This assumes there are no mutations to allow the DNA present in the autosome to produce male flowers. The job of the x is to silence the male flower DNA in the autosome, the job of the y is to silence the x and the autosomal female flower dna

DNA for flowers is in the autosome not the sex chromosome. The job of the sex chromosomes are to silence flower production not cause it.

Really not trying to be a dick, its just useful to have it clear.

 

[Hookahhead]

Recently I flowered out a male that threw only a few female flowers.

I pollinated these with its own flowers, and after a few weeks you could seeds starting to develop. Here you can see the bulge in the node.

After allowing the plant to flower for 7 weeks, it had only ever developed the pistils at the very beginning of flower, and only in the top 3ish inches of the main cola. He was all male otherwise. At 6 weeks I decided to harvest the seed because the plants were outdoor and I didn’t want them to fall out. I had 3 mature and 2 immature but I lost a mature one..doh.

He was extra frosty..

I’ll give them a chance to sprout just to see for curiosity sake.

I live outside of the US and have purchased a product containing 2-chloroethyl phosphoric acid at 48% for less than $5. This is a very strong and very cheap source of ethylene, they use it to ripen mango and other tropical fruit. I plan to experiment with that shortly just for curiosity. I will make my own thread when I do.

Thanks for posting those photos Hammerhead, whodatis has the best photos of a reversed male I’ve come across in my research into the subject.

I found the old papers from the late 60’s, anyone have the name or authors of the Ukrainian ones referenced?

 

[KiefSweat]

To be honest I left this for Sam to explain, as its his thread, but he can jump in and correct any errors he feels I make here.
I just did a couple of PMS explaining this, so I can paste the info in.

Dominant and recessive has nothing to do with how frequently they are passed down, but rather their relationship in the expression.
X and y will be passed from a male at 50:50 ratios, but the dominance of the Y chromosome means that if it is present, the plant will express male flowers and be a male plant. The x is recessive. If two x's are the only sex chromosomes present, then the plant will be female. This assumes there are no mutations to allow the DNA present in the autosome to produce male flowers. The job of the x is to silence the male flower DNA in the autosome, the job of the y is to silence the x and the autosomal female flower dna

DNA for flowers is in the autosome not the sex chromosome. The job of the sex chromosomes are to silence flower production not cause it.

A male has x y sex chromosomes
Female has xx
N2 sex chromosomes will follow Mendel's punnet squares
Xx 25 %. Female
Xy 50%. Standard male
Yy 25%. "Super" male (unscientific term but popular in our circles).

Really not trying to be a dick, its just useful to have it clear.

Again your under the assumption that the seed parent is passing down a Y chromosome. That’s not how an xy mating system works.

 

[KiefSweat]

Your mother plant is passing down an x. If your creating an ovuale that’s the female side of the genes not the male. your pollen plant is either the passing down the y or another x.
It would actually be something that’s really simple to observe is someone actually grew out a population of these seeds. There’s one dude in all the threads that claims he did and he was left with a regular close to 1:1 sexual ratio in the seed. That’s how sexual dominance works. Or you then would see a 3:1 ratio like you would crossing female x monoecious plants

Cannabis shows a female dominance in sexual ratios. And isn’t much different then any other crop in those regards. Something something about the Y chromosome being not necessary as Sam was alluding Since there’s only like 6% of plants that are dioecious you would be able to find this super male yy scheme in other plants which if where the case this discussion wouldn’t still be going on 12 years later.

 

[KiefSweat]

Not cannabis but since things in nature like to follow patterns

If no yy outcome was made then were at least safer to assume that the 25% super male line is some bs

 

[KiefSweat]

You guys are missing the yx plants too.
If your egg could have a Y chromosome going against what we know about Basic biology
But your punnet if your assuming it’s a basic monohybrid would be 25% yx 25% xx 25% xy 25% yy. I don’t know why would assume that you would only get the yy combination or that yx would be the same as xy

Now theoretically you would actually have 50% of the population now with a y chromome that supposedly is now maternal.

 

[GMT]

To argue Santa Claus doesn't deliver presents because he doesn't exist is one thing, to say reindeers don't exist is another.
Its been done. There's no point in arguing it can't be done, because it has been. Therefore we know it is possible
Also
Xy is male yx is male 25% + 25% = 50%

 

[Hookahhead]

Good find on the paper, let’s take a deeper look, the full text is available here.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333333413_The_X_chromosome_is_necessary_for_ovule_production_in_Silene_latifolia/fulltext/5ce759f6299bf14d95b5289f/333333413_The_X_chromosome_is_necessary_for_ovule_production_in_Silene_latifolia.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Some interesting parts..

Materials and methods:
The seed was germinated in a greenhouse at Indiana University, and following a 2-week growth period in the greenhouse, the resulting seedling was transplanted into a 2L pot that was placed outside in Bloomington, IN for a 3-month period (from 30 May to 30 Aug 2018). The focal plant produced 1150 normal staminate (pollen-producing) flowers during its 85 days of flowering, and 1 pistillate (ovule-producing) flower that developed into a fruit. This individual was otherwise indistinguishable from a normal male.

So from this, we see this was kind of a “freak accident” almost an identical situation to the Cannabis plant I posted above. Furthermore, this plant only produced a single ovule from which a single fruit developed. They tested the seeds from this one fruit.

The focal plant was surrounded by other S. latifolia plants, allowing the flower that produced the fruit to be open pollinated. Hence, all offspring from the fruit are expected to be the product of a XY x XY cross, which would produce a genotype ratio of 1 XX: 2 XY: 1YY if Y ovules were produced and YY individuals were viable.

I don’t think any of us dispute that this is the expected ratio under basic Mendelian inheritance. However you make a valid argument that this is different because we are dealing with sex chromosomes.

Results:
The flower from the male plant that produced the fruit contained 112 ovules, an uncharacteristically small number as the average for this population is ~300 (unpublished data/L. Delph personal communication). The pedicel of the fruit had an XY genotype, as did the placental tissue. The fruit contained 27 non-fertilized ovules, 5 aborted embryos, and 80 seeds (Fig 1). Of these 80 seeds, 66 germinated, which is a typical germination rate. The majority of fertilized ovules therefore matured normally.

Here the authors admit the fruit bore an under average number of seeds, despite being surrounded pollen including its own. It’s possible that there was some mechanism that prevented self fertilization, or just random chance.

Discussion:
To test whether an X chromosome is required to produce viable seed in the dioecious species S. latifolia, which has heteromorphic sex chromosomes, we took advantage of seeds produced from a single ovule-bearing flower from a plant that was otherwise a normal XY male individual. The complete absence of YY offspring from the fruit that developed from this flower suggests that the X contains genes not present on the Y that are necessary for megasporophyte development, such that no ovules with a Y develop. The lack of development of ovules containing a Y is further supported by the fact that the XY fruit contained abnormally few ovules.

Their results seem to suggest, as you were saying, that the X needs to be present for the ovule to develop in the first place.

Our results contrast those from Miller & Kesseli (2001)[30] where several XY plants were shown to transmit the Y through ovules and a ratio of 1XX:2XY was obtained. This is likely a consequence of the naturally occurring Y studied by Miller & Kesseli having a mutation that disrupts its female suppression function (see [31]). This would make it similar to the Y2 described by Westergaard (1946)[28], although smaller mutations that do not affect the chromosome structure can have the same effect. Such a disruption would result in the observed hermaphrodite phenotype of the XY individuals used in their experiment, and the complete absence of normal males. In contrast to previous studies of Y-chromosome phenotypic effects in S. latifolia, we have no reason to believe the Y chromosome in our study is different from wild type. Only one out of 1151 flowers was pistillate in the parent plant, and none of the F1 male offspring had abnormal flowers. The reason the Y chromosome studied by Miller & Kesseli could pass through ovaries is either because the missing female suppressor function gene on that chromosome pleiotropically affects ovule viability, or because a larger translocation of X or autosomal genes had occurred (as in Westergaard’s Y2) that restored some of the lost functionality of the wild-type Y.

Taken together, our results provide the first evidence of negative fitness consequences of Y- chromosome degeneration using a naturally occurring Y chromosome in an otherwise normal male in S. latifolia. Our study adds to the body of evidence that YY plants are inviable based on artificial means (e.g., mutant Y chromosomes and disruption of methylation [1,20,21]). The departure from a 1:2 XX:XY sex ratio in the offspring and the low number of total ovules in our study allows us to conclude that the development of the female gametophyte requires an X chromosome. In addition, the small number of ovules contained in the fruit excludes meiotic drive as an explanation for the deficit of XY individuals. While haploid selection slows down Y-chromosome degeneration [11,32], we conclude that the Y chromosome of S. latifolia has degenerated to the extent that it is insufficient for ovule development.

Here the authors point out that the body of evidence supports the idea that YY genotypes are inviable. They also add that although formation of the ovule is not possible without an X chromosome in S. Latifolia, there are naturally occurring processes by which it CAN occur. Furthermore, we know for certain that hermaphroditic plants do occur naturally in Cannabis populations. Therefore, I would suggest there are some major issues with comparing the apples and the oranges.

Edit: I just wanted to add, I am not “picking a side” with this post. I feel that Kief makes a valid argument, and provides some evidence to support it. However, I also think it’s dangerous to be wholly convinced after seeing a study on a single anomaly, on a single plant, that bore a single fruit in an unrelated species. I think it’s kind of moot anyway, wasn’t the point that YY “super males” are non viable? Whether that’s because an ovule isn’t formed, or that the seed fails to develop, both cases end in the same outcome.

 

[GMT]

In what way do you feel that non recombing chromosomes act differently than a single gene in an n2 species like cannabis?
Human beings are also n2, what's the distribution in births between male and female for us? Does it follow Mendelian models of inheritance?
Everyone knows the difference between an ovule and the offspring generated should it become fertilized right? The sexual existential state need not be identical.

 

[vanilla dutch]

Cell Press has good info.

 

[numberguy]

A better question would be what are males useful for? First thing that comes to mind is stopping hermi's in a strain, 2 improving quickly a inbred strain, 3 keeping a strain going naturally, 4 proving males are not all hemp. Just a few for now

 

[GMT]

Just a quick response to a late edit above:

Kiefs point is not valid. I'm sorry I mustn't have made this clear enough. My bad, I'll do it simpler.

A normal everyday female is an xx plant. If fertilised by a single strand of DNA from another plant, whether that is male or female what happens is this. The pollen grain is caught by a pistil, (the little hairy things that come out from the buds), and it gets passed down to what is called the ovule. This then gets fertilised and forms a seed. The pollen may contain an x chromosome, in which case the seed will become an xx plant. Namely another female. By reversing a female plant, only x containing pollen is created, thereby guaranteeing all of the offspring are female.
If a male is used to generate the pollen, then half (50%) of that pollen will contain an x chromosome and create a female seed, and half will create a male seed because the pollen captured will contain a Y chromosome.
Now, if you reverse a male plant so that it expresses female flowers, ( which is possible even if kiefs reference paper is correct and relevant to cannabis) because every normal male has an x along with his Y, then you can fertilise those flowers with pollen. If you use male pollen, then the ratios of the genetic composition of the offspring will be as I laid out earlier.

 

[@hempy]

Males add 50% they hold ancestry memory's they help clean mutations and i am sure males do a lot more to.

 

[Hookahhead]

GMT with all do respect bud I really appreciate your posts here. No need to be brash, most of my post was supporting your opinion , or so I thought... I’m trying to have a discussion not an argument.

All he is saying is that in S. latifolia the formation of the ovule requires an X chromosome, without the X chromosome the ovule will not develop and most likely (in my opinion) will form a male flower instead.

Again no disrespect, I normally consider your posts intelligent and well thought out, but this is even on Wikipedia bro..

Plants which reproduce sexually also have gametes. However, since plants have an alternation of diploid and haploid generations some differences exist. In flowering plants, the flowers use meiosis to produce a haploid generation which produce gametes through mitosis. The female haploid is called the ovule and is produced by the ovary of the flower. When mature, the haploid ovule produces the female gamete which are ready for fertilization. The male haploid is pollen and is produced by the anther, when pollen lands on a mature stigma of a flower it grows a pollen tube down into the flower. The haploid pollen then produces sperm by mitosis and releases them for fertilization.

 

[GMT]

Mate please re read what I wrote in the overly simplified version. Reversing an xy male has an x chromosome, so the ovule can develop on a male plant. There is nothing to prevent fertilisation. A YY male, and I don't know if that paper would also apply to cannabis or not, ask Sam that one, but if so, a yy male would not be able to be fertilised even if reversed. But an xy definitely can as its been done. Not by one person, but by at least 2 here on this site.

 

[Hookahhead]

I am not saying a male cannot be reversed and be pollinated.

Edit: In case you missed it, a page or 2 back I made a post about a full blown male that produced very few female flowers, which produced seed as well. I’ve seen that it can occur first hand in my own garden, I never contested that point.

What I am saying is that it seems like from the research and other published data, as Kief was saying, for whatever reason the ovule only seems to transmit only the female chromosome.

Discussion:...The departure from a 1:2 XX:XY sex ratio in the offspring and the low number of total ovules in our study allows us to conclude that the development of the female gametophyte requires an X chromosome.

If the ovule is only transmitting the X chromosome then it’s a lottery on the male side. either the males X or his Y is passed on. In this case we’ll see 50:50 female to male, just as the study found.

Introduction:...If ovules containing Y chromosomes existed and were viable, and if no other mechanisms were at work, an offspring genotype ratio of 1XX:2XY:1YY would be expected. If Y ovules were produced but YY offspring were inviable, we would expect a 1XX:2XY ratio. Lastly, if ovules containing Y chromosomes did not exist or were inviable, the resulting ratio would be 1XX:1XY. We found no YY offspring and an equal sex ratio in the F1 offspring.

I don’t see why you think the study is irrelevant to the post? It is published research that provides a possible mechanism for what has been said for a while, YY males don’t exist in the population.

 

[Hookahhead]

One way to test this would be to reverse a male and hit it with a reversed female. If the above hypothesis is correct, only feminized seeds will be produced. (The X from the male, and one of the two X from the female). If it is not correct it should produced “regular” seed in the sense of mixed male/female population.

I don’t know how you would go about preventing the seed producing plant from fertilizing itself. Maybe sterilization with high enough ethylene?

I think what we’re discussing also has something to do with “female flowers suppression” on the Y chromosome. This may explain why reversed males don’t fully reverse.. It looks like 50% or fewer of the flowers switch to female... again this is only speculation for the sake of discussion.

 

[harryb]

The same could be said for male/female breeding. It all comes down to proper breeding. Let’s use Sam as an example if he took 1000 males and 1000 females and crossed those and then made selections in the next generation he just narrowed the gene pool. If he continued on for 1000 generations without back or out crossing he would end up with inbred garbage wether he did it with males or just females.

It all comes down to proper breeding but the truth is we have no idea what would happen in a proper breeding program if only females were used for 1000 generations.

I must strongly disagree because obtaining the lineage is the first step into breeding true F1.
If you choose to bulk select it, after 7 generations more or less you have 99 pure homozygous plant which will be ready to be crossed with another pure lineage in order to achieve the so called hybrid. Same as I corn. In a nutshell of course. Takes years with corn.

 

[harryb]

Inbreeding depression only occurs due to mutations in essential genes being passed on. A mutation is no more or less likely to occur in males or females. The sex is irrelevant. Testing of the offspring and when necessary, going back and using different parents to create a desirable generation, will always be the difference between a quality breeder and a pollen chucker.

Hi, sorry, but that is not what school has taught me. Inbreeding depression comes from hi levels of homozygosity in cross-pollinating species. If you take beans for instance, they are a lineage and since are self-pollinating they genetic value comes from homozygosity on the alleles rather than Cannabis and that take advantage of hybrid vigour (heterosis genetically speaking) as cross-polinating species.

 

[harryb]

To be honest I left this for Sam to explain, as its his thread, but he can jump in and correct any errors he feels I make here.
I just did a couple of PMS explaining this, so I can paste the info in.

Dominant and recessive has nothing to do with how frequently they are passed down, but rather their relationship in the expression.
X and y will be passed from a male at 50:50 ratios, but the dominance of the Y chromosome means that if it is present, the plant will express male flowers and be a male plant. The x is recessive. If two x's are the only sex chromosomes present, then the plant will be female. This assumes there are no mutations to allow the DNA present in the autosome to produce male flowers. The job of the x is to silence the male flower DNA in the autosome, the job of the y is to silence the x and the autosomal female flower dna

DNA for flowers is in the autosome not the sex chromosome. The job of the sex chromosomes are to silence flower production not cause it.

A male has x y sex chromosomes
Female has xx
N2 sex chromosomes will follow Mendel's punnet squares
Xx 25 %. Female
Xy 50%. Standard male
Yy 25%. "Super" male (unscientific term but popular in our circles).

Really not trying to be a dick, its just useful to have it clear.

Do uou get Yy by crossing a regular male with a sex changed male, (male turned into female)?

Because when you cross Xy with Xx there is no possibility to get Yy. Thanks for the attention.