TWO S1 LINE PRODUCES MALES

OK I need some help understanding how this is possable. Here is the deal... I planted 4 s1 seeds 2 where Peyote Purple S1

After a 30 day veg. I put them all into flower. I noticed the first male from the PP. I inspected him very well and can only see male parts so far..I noticed the GDP a few days later. I would like to know how this happens.. Anyone have any ideas how this can happen..

I have grown PP a lot 30 plants

Hi Hammerhead this came up elsewhere recently too.

They're not males ime, but highly staminate intersex females. Cannabis plants (sex) are controlled first by the XY system, but secondly (expression) by (often environmentally triggered) modifying factors located on autosomes, or pseudoautosomal regions. A female plant with a noted absence of masculine type modifiers can be said to be strongly female. When selfed her progeny will contain very few if any intersex individuals. The opposite type of plant (a female with a noted abundance of masculine type modifiers) -though they may be masked in the parent- will occasionally give rise upon recombination to what you're referring to in this thread. But they're not really males.

All plants born from gynoecious selections (born from female reversals) are females in regards to their sex chromosomes but express as females and intersex females of varying degrees (varying all the way to "it damn sure looks like a male to me") due to the presence/absence/activation of modifying factors.

This phenomenon is not exclusive to plants born of gynoecious selections, rather it is simply more readily apparent there than with male/female selections where it is masked by the expectation of seeing males in the population. -Tom

Thanks Tom, So the Pollen for these will make fem seeds correct ??? Or should these just get culled and are of no use

Theoretically yes, though perhaps a female seedlot with substantial odds of a population containing a noted abundance of masculine type modifier genes.

Charlie is the guy to talk to about this maybe, as he is the only person I can recall having some experience/success in this arena. I do seem to recall him using such a "male" somewhere in the breeding of said line, and he likely would be able to shed more light than I as to what the phenotypic results (sexual expression) were in the immediately following generation. -T

I could do some small seed lots with it and see what they produce....Way back in the day I thought this was they way fem seeds where made. Then the chemically induced fem plants took over.. Is it fair to say this type of female pollen is not as good to make fem seeds? If you had a choice what type is better to use??. Thanks for the help Tom

While it seems somewhat counter intuitive to me, there is no denying the success that folks like Charlie has had with it so it's difficult to say. The best plants to use are the ones that bring the best results, that really is the bottom line.

I would encourage you to proceed with the experiment (if you're into it) on a small scale as you say, more input would be welcomed. It may be that occasionally the phenotypic (sex) expression of populations can be swayed in this manner without it resulting in an all-out intersex nightmare as we know it. Charlies line certainly seems to hold some evidence towards that end, maybe Haze, some of the Thais, there have been others I have observed that have behaved suspiciously similar. That is to say, what I have suspected may be (genetic) female populations containing high percentages of the following two (sex) phenotypes with the bulk of the population consisting of 1) non-intersex females. - followed by a much lower percentage of 2) highly staminate intersex females. -T

Thanks Tom this all really helps.. I sent a PM to Charlie to join the discussion.. I have plenty of time to do these tests. Im very interested so find out what these types of plants produce. Will I see more males,Hermie's, if I use this pollen? did nature turn this plant back to a normal male?. This is the first time I have seen this so it's very interesting to me how and why this happens and is it a superior source for female pollen then a chemically induced female..

You'll see no real (genetic) males Hammerhead because it's still a female (genetic) line but you may see more highly staminate intersex females that look like males (phenotypically). No, nature can't turn these into regular (genetic) males. You may or may not observe more of what we commonly think of as hermies in the offspring, only one way to find out. If I had to guess my moneys on more of the same in the offspring, that is to say the vast majority of the population consisting of two phenotypes outlined in 1) and 2) above. It's not a superior source of female pollen in and of itself (compared to using a reversed female), but it could be a superior parent none the less due to its genetic make-up. Try it, let's see what happens, muuuahaahaa, science.

Jeje, I hope Charlies not mad at me for referring to his PP males as highly staminate intersex females. BigLove brother Charlie, it's just my take on it.

Couldn't it also be possible that the plant in question is actually a male due to contamination in the original breeding project? Couldn't male pollen have come into contact with the original female from someone not being careful enough? That's the first thing that came to mind but I'm just a cat!

TomHill said:

Jeje, I hope Charlies not mad at me for referring to his PP males as highly staminate intersex females. BigLove brother Charlie, it's just my take on it.

Click to expand...

hehehe. I saw this too and knew that was which plant line you spoke of. But like you said, many folks finding and enjoying the plants!


dank.Frank

thats possable I dont know how Charlie segregated them girls from the boys.. The only way to tell is for me to make some small batches of seeds and see if the F2 PP plants looks familiar in anyway...

You are not alone with that first thought Ultra Current but I don't believe that's the case. It's happening often enough now, and with several breeders who run very tight ships (including Charlie). More experiments like the one above will provide more input but I believe we have seen this play out before.

In my opinion, it's just another new insight into cannabis genetics brought to us at least in part and with the help of our good friend the reversal

Of course I very well could be wrong too, cannabis geneticists do not exactly have cannabis sexuality in its entirety down pat quite yet.

It would be wonderfully amusing to me if it turns out that as we do learn more, that some breeders choosing to poddy-mouth female lines were actually using them unbeknownst to them, utilizing highly staminate intersex females as pollen donors. It is possible imo, and I would lmao. -T

Of course another extremely intelligent and valuable series of posts from Mr Hill, surprise surprise.

I would agree with his assessment, if the plants show a lack of male markers. In that case, I would agree.... but it is not possible to rule out pollen contamination from a XY source, without genetic testing. Whether this is actually a XX-male-modifier-rich plant, or an XY individual has not been shown... so it's hard to rule out contamination. Were the seeds not produced by Charlie, I would lean heavily towards contamination..... at this point though either proposal is really speculation.

Good food for thought though, either way.

Make a test cross. If you see 1:1 male:female ratios, you are likely looking at a true male (XY) plant. If not, Tom's theory likely holds some merit. Who knew there was more to him than big plants and a pretty face?

Respectfully,
-Chimera

I agree with the above points outlined, however its also important to say that in order for the male regions within the autosomal framework to be active, the silencing gene sequence within the X chromosome would need to be broken for them to "express". In my view that spells trouble in the offspring population. This isn't to say that the parent selection was poor, just that a random mutation would allow this to happen. What is more suprising, is to find that mutation coupled with the lack of pistil production. This would normally only happen in the presence of a Y chromosome supressing the pistil production regions of the autosomal chromosomes. In order for it to happen without the pressence of a Y, is suspicious. This seems like an awful lot of coincidental random mutations to have occurred in one generation. While its possible, if its happening on a regular basis with this line of plants, then I'd have to say that I'd be unhappy using up time and space to breed the line further, esp with a "female" that is clearly so messed up.

we will see what happens. I will do a few samll branches and see what they produce. My intensions where to make some pp x Querkle and GDP x Querkle. Then this male PP showed up..

Great information so far
Can't wait to see what happens for you hammer
Tom's and chimera's thoughts and insights are like gold, not only on this subject, here on ICMag, thank you both for sharing your knowledge for us all to read

Bravo!! Great info.

Hola amigos

Thx HH for inviting me to tell the story and follow experiment. Interesting for sure but I cant say myself much more as had not time to follow results much longer but testings just one more step in this case. Its not only the Peyote Purple males results but Ive heard of many other males coming out of feminized plants. Sure friends who found some and myself paid lot of attention to these males in the sense they didnt show hairs and it seemed in normal conditions to act like real males and females (not intersexual traits upon visual observation) After couple of years after its release not much incidences at all and most customers appreciate its quality and good results. Only I did instead was to release them as regular seeds due results instead of feminised despite they are S1 in fact

Peyote itself started from a Bubba Kush S1 which already gave a male. I know talking to good friend Wesos who bred this initial steps of Peyote, he encountered some populations mostly males in its breeding proccess so since the begining, the balance of sex is been kinda weird. As Tom says at the end is results which lead you to go on and decide. Am not inclined to work these type of lines at first until I see myslef everything is ok in results obviously, in this case Peyote release explained was due great quality results of this particular S1 I confirmed and Wesos desire. Went futher breeding 1 step more and made a new generation but despite not weird sexual issues found, quality was inferior so decided to repeat same S1 to be shared publically. Being this said I dont mean there can be or not visually intersexual plants but in seed tests not particullary hermis at all under normal stress.

Another question is whats future will tell. I broke some own rules with Peyote Purple, I had never released a line which had such obvious strange sex behaviours but at the end again, is qualtity and results and I love its smoke and traits. Some males have been used with normal results but have not such big data to tell for sure and after more than one generation if there are or not problems. Im inclined myself to believe there can be slighty intersexuals with the time. Good females of other lines may also hide this trait deeper and give excellent results... or not.

A mostly female offspring is something I found also when cleanig deep some mostly intersexual landraces when trying to eliminate the intersexual trait, Meao Thais or Mangobiche colombian for instance show very few males but everything works ok in females and in males and they all look like and act like good ones. If they are intersexuals or not in their ID card I dont know. But results when growing them are good enough to trust the lines and not be messed up with intersexuals and plenty of unwished seeds

Also worked for long some other breeding steps in other jobs and found myself some generations of mostly male plants so had to change parentals for obvious reasons. Its a mystery to me in fact yet, I tend to believe Toms explanation but for sure, more tests should be done in further steps and not only one generation to understand some lines in particular and extract better conclusions to formulate a theory

So good to see you Tom wish all goes well hermano. Thx Chimera and amigos for your input too as usual much to learn here as my experience comes from the fields and the dirt
cuidense
kaiki

great info charlie thanks for helping me understand.. From your post it seems you have used these S1 males and had no issues with there performance. No Hermie issues and most of the seeds made where female. Is this correct ?????

There is no lack of male markers in fact the female makers are not showing. These male s1 look like a male. I can not tell the difference between my male Querkle then I can the PP s1 male..

Chimera said:

Of course another extremely intelligent and valuable series of posts from Mr Hill, surprise surprise.

I would agree with his assessment, if the plants show a lack of male markers. In that case, I would agree.... but it is not possible to rule out pollen contamination from a XY source, without genetic testing. Whether this is actually a XX-male-modifier-rich plant, or an XY individual has not been shown... so it's hard to rule out contamination. Were the seeds not produced by Charlie, I would lean heavily towards contamination..... at this point though either proposal is really speculation.

Good food for thought though, either way.

Make a test cross. If you see 1:1 male:female ratios, you are likely looking at a true male (XY) plant. If not, Tom's theory likely holds some merit. Who knew there was more to him than big plants and a pretty face?

Respectfully,
-Chimera

Click to expand...