C
cork144
cheese s1's should be true females, i assume blues x cheese would also be true female seeds, simply because the mothers used are true females.
Reversed Backcrossing:)
- Thread starter englishrick
- Start date
basically yes - it's all about selection, whether fem or reg. thats the word from the experts that are actually prepared to discuss and expand on the subject rather than just tell us not to do it.
so a true female should never produce even a single male flower even if over ripened??
H
heavy dank nugg
how come when i said this everyone attacked me ???? any way its true. i see alot of copy and paste coming from rick . and i know in my heart it makes no sence to him????? why he cant even spell reversed or man or phenotype. sorry rick but this thread and your actions are BullShit. and ill be waiting for you to prove me wrong. hope you do Rick I like you. but im seeing you as someone who dose not know WTF hes talking about..... we all sling the b.s. here but 35 pages c'mon
H
heavy dank nugg
a couple of points.
firstly, i have to say that whilst i have huge respect for Chimera, and im not trying to 'call him out' (not even sure what it means)
but if it is so important to him that we avoid this avenue of breeding - using selfing or fems - then why couldnt he either give us an outline of why it is so bad or at least provide some links to where we could read more about it. Links to the internet are much more accessible than books for most people.
after all this thread has had 7000 hits! he could reach a lot of people.
if some of us can't understand the complexities of the subject then that is all the more incentive for us to go out and do more research.
i have the cervantes book he reference and it is a great chapter he wrote - but only really touches on the subjects mentioned here. The marijuana botany book i have read some of but dont own - it's fairly obscure.
secondly, as a community or individuals we are unlikely to just listen to the 'voice of authority' and accept it blindly without questioning - if we were predisposed to do that then it is unlikely we would have tried cannabis in the first place, because most of the propaganda in society is advising against it.
we are the people that are hard-wired to question and experiment!
"Since the dawn of our species man's been blessed with curiosity" Tom Friendly
V.
chimera did provide info you lazy fool look it up geeze you and rick are crying to be spoon fed
i commented upon the books he mentioned but expressed surprise/disappointment that he hadnt provided some links that were accessible to everyone on the internet.
and hdn, trust me, you are in NO position to criticize anyone's spelling.
Einstein was dyslexic - couldn't spell for sh1t. Doesnt mean he was stupid.
this is the last time i will respond to you here hdn, you talk about being attacked but the only person i have seen being rude and argumentative here is you.
sincerely
V.
H
heavy dank nugg
im also not trying to come off as some genius either.....
H
heavy dank nugg
Hi Rick, personally I have no problem with people cut and pasting info, the problem I do have is being asked to comment on a stufy without being given the full text. I can't comment on less than half of a picture. Posts 446 and 447 were of particular interest to me, and I'd like either a link to the studues or the full texts. Though to be honest they are far more relevant to what I am doing than what you are proposing to do.
In answer to the one question you asked me since my last post: possably.
In answer to the one question you asked me since my last post: possably.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1554/06-220.1
hay GMT i hope you enjoy this,,,,,,,
thankyou, so mutch for chatting with me in sutch a cool way,,,,
hear is something i cut and pastedfrom this paper....it talks mainly about selfing plants, but it gets to polyploidy
its short but grate info.....i thought of you when i read this GMT......
Ideas about the evolution of agamospermy and apogamy in plants tend to focus on the genetic consequences of agamospermy and the mechanisms by which it might arise (5). In flowering plants, for example, agamospermous reproduction resulting from asexual development of gametophytic tissue is almost invariably associated with polyploidy. Whitton (34) suggests that this correlation arises because the same process, formation of unreduced female gametophytes, contributes both to agamospermous reproduction and to the origin of polyploids. Although these arguments may shed light on the evolutionary correlates of agamospermy, they shed no light on the process by which a genetic variant promoting agamospermy is able to establish itself within populations. Fortunately, it is easy to construct arguments parallel to those for the automatic selection advantage of self-fertilization to show why a similar advantage might accrue to asexual plants in a population of hermaphroditic outcrossers.
SEXUAL DIMORPHISM AND ADAPTIVE SPECIATION: TWO SIDES OF THE SAME ECOLOGICAL COIN....by Daniel I. Bolnick and Michael Doebeli
Cut and paste,,,my fave bit
sexual dimorphism, which can evolve quickly, can eliminate the frequency-dependent disruptive selection that would have provided the impetus for speciation.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1554/02-595
It has been argued that the architecture of the genotype-phenotype map determines evolvability, but few studies have attempted to quantify these effects. In this article we use the multilinear epistatic model to study the effects of different forms of epistasis on the response to directional selection. We derive an analytical prediction for the change in the additive genetic variance, and use individual-based simulations to understand the dynamics of evolvability and the evolution of genetic architecture. This shows that the major determinant for the evolution of the additive variance, and thus the evolvability, is directional epistasis. Positive directional epistasis leads to an acceleration of evolvability, while negative directional epistasis leads to canalization. In contrast, pure non-directional epistasis has little effect on the response to selection. One consequence of this is that the classical epistatic variance components, which do not distinguish directional and non-directional effects, are useless as predictors of evolutionary dynamics. The build-up of linkage disequilibrium also has negligible effects. We argue that directional epistasis is likely to have major effects on evolutionary dynamics and should be the focus of empirical studies of epistasis.
actually, its fairly clear from the full text that (assuming the experiments were carried out properly and I have no reason to doubt that) (and assuming that the plants studied react in the same way as cannabis, which we have no way to know), that a series of selfing incidents, will result in the stabalisation far more quickly than standard phenotype inbreeding. I still question the usefullness though as it leaves a population that cannot breed with itself without using further selfing techniques. I would rather put the work in and leave a healthy population which is capable of breeding in the standard way, even if it leaves the population with a little more variablility. Though that's a personal choice that I'm making.
I'm not saying that selfing will leave the plants unhealthy, just that without males, its longevity is subject to the ability of the breeder to undertake processes that are frankly beyond my experience or confidence in my own abilities. And I'm not a noob.
The thread is the most interesting thread on the site in my opinion. There again I'm not so interested in how old are you polls or follow the story with 4 words threads.
I'm not saying that selfing will leave the plants unhealthy, just that without males, its longevity is subject to the ability of the breeder to undertake processes that are frankly beyond my experience or confidence in my own abilities. And I'm not a noob.
The thread is the most interesting thread on the site in my opinion. There again I'm not so interested in how old are you polls or follow the story with 4 words threads.
GMT,
A nearly homozygous plant that gives rise to healthy offspring can be produced and isolated via selfing and then used as a recurrent parent in Souls quick cube job to produce a male/female line. Bearing in mind that we are discussing a single elite clone of unknown origin here and not the entirety of Vavilov's collection, I really don't think there's much of a valid argument against it.
A nearly homozygous plant that gives rise to healthy offspring can be produced and isolated via selfing and then used as a recurrent parent in Souls quick cube job to produce a male/female line. Bearing in mind that we are discussing a single elite clone of unknown origin here and not the entirety of Vavilov's collection, I really don't think there's much of a valid argument against it.
i think col just explained the entire idea but without the [bs?] an "Reverce Backcross"
am i supported ,,,,or am i still confused?
im sorry for all this guys
am i supported ,,,,or am i still confused?
im sorry for all this guys
I can't cut and copy this but the link is to an extract of a book discussing the results of repeated selfing, stating that it CAN (not necessarily does) cause problems further down the line. Repeated incrossing (which I feel would cover Soul's cubing method) also ressults in the same problems, though greatly reduced.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...z_ncCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
Colina, if one were to use Soul's cubing method, what would the advantage be of selfing the clone in the first place? Given that there will be marginal differences in the offspring, even when using a selfing technique to produce the seeds, would it not be wiser to simply use the original clone rather than selfing it first? I'm wondering why selfing needs to play any part of a plan to utilise the cubing technique.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...z_ncCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
Colina, if one were to use Soul's cubing method, what would the advantage be of selfing the clone in the first place? Given that there will be marginal differences in the offspring, even when using a selfing technique to produce the seeds, would it not be wiser to simply use the original clone rather than selfing it first? I'm wondering why selfing needs to play any part of a plan to utilise the cubing technique.
Rick, what Colina suggested and your idea are different. In Colina's suggestion, you are selfing to create the S1 (or P1) generation, and then outcrossing to a male, then backcrossing males from each subsequent generation to the original S1 (P1) plant. In your proposed method you are selfing a clone and then using chemicals to artificially produce pollen in order to backcross to the clone. Your method produces female only seeds. Colina's method produces both male and female seeds. Colina's method would produce more variablity within the line that your method, but would also result in a healthier population if the last link is accurate.
here is 1 of my early hypothetical Breeding Maps
its still a good idea........
what do you think guys?
this was beffore i got crazy
