-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
100% male with feminized seeds?
- Thread starter Yagar2000
- Start date
What do you mean by "not supposed to"? Lol, naughty plants. You tell them off, that's right.
I don't think nature cares what rules you create for it, nor does nature break it's own rules. Only our interpretation of them. What you're talking about is not only normal, but essential and not naughty plants breaking rules.
I don't think nature cares what rules you create for it, nor does nature break it's own rules. Only our interpretation of them. What you're talking about is not only normal, but essential and not naughty plants breaking rules.
mudballs
Well-known member
XY is normal...now if you take a hexaploid...and it's offspring has messed up genes, and it gets crossed to a diploid, you may get offspring that look normal and seemingly act normal but are the precursor to a breeding output capable of creating a female, that when femminized, is still capable of producing an anueploid retaining Y chromosome material?...nay that is proven...so perhaps, just perhaps, in all the sorcery that is a polyploidy meiotic recombination...that female when crossed with itself only had 1 of the 2 XXY's inactivated...you gave testimony 1 is inactivated, but 2 are involved...you have written the rules XXY offspring can't happen, not me
Tynehead Tom
Well-known member
dude , you read way more into my post than you needed to. I was no where near trying to "police" your responses. I only quoted you as I was responding partly to the content of your post and expanding beyond that pretty quickly. I am probably one of the most unwoke people on this site and to even bring that up is fucking juvenile.
So if you want to pick fights where there aren't any, and none intended well then my usual response to that is ...... get bent or get over it
I'd prefer you got over it but whatever floats yer boat man
CharlesU Farley
Well-known member
Here's Nevil's thoughts on the subject from 2010. I'm so very glad he was not successful in reversing NL #5 and it is my firm belief that that's the reason I've never had any problem with hermaphroditic plants:
Nevil
Breeder
Sep 15, 2010
Add bookmark
#588
it would be interesting to reverse a male plant, and self it or cross with another reversed male, to see if we get all male offspring out of the seed?
Yep, done that. I selfed the HazeC male. Theoretically their should be 25% YY. I was looking for them.
I got about 33% females and 66% males, no intersex. I progeny tested maybe 20 males, All produced normal male to female ratio's and no intersex. The seeds had normal viability, so I guessed that YY would block seed growing in the first place.
None of the HzC male selfed, came close to being as good as HzC for breeding.
N.
Nevil
Breeder
Sep 21, 2010
Add bookmark
#670
And so we reach the cutting edge. At this point, no one can dredge up somebodies thesis on why a fem seed should produce an apparent male that did not produce viable pollen. Suddenly everybody is quiet. Now is the time to prove how clever you are. Stick your neck out, come up with a hypothesis. Isn't this what science is all about?
I've already taken the position that fem seeds can only be produced if the female used to provide the pollen is carrying a latent (or not) herm/intersex gene. A true female will not produce viable pollen.
I suspect that the strongest evidence against my position may come from the example we are now discussing, but you can hardly expect me to make your argument for you.
I may as well go back to getting stoned and talking to
myself.
N.
Nevil
Breeder
Aug 15, 2010
Add bookmark
#11
Just a few thoughts on feminised seed.
I've used fruiting hormones on HzC male to get it to produce female flowers. HzC squared. We still have some of these old seeds. They produced real males and real females.
I've used Gibberelic acid on NL5 to try to get it to produce male flowers. It did, about 5 flowers in a whole room full. The Anthers did NOT contain pollen. NL5 was a true female. A true female will not produce pollen. The ability to produce pollen is a hermaphroditic trait, which may be suppressed, but must be present to produce pollen.
There is a use for feminised seed in breeding, you get to see what the "males" phenotype is before crossing. 50% of the offspring will be true females, the only way to tell is to try and get pollen from the selected female. If it won't produce pollen it's a true female.
There is a better way to do things and that is to feminise the male to check the phenotype. I did this with my Red and Blue lines of Sk1 and got great
results.
N.
Nevil
Breeder
Sep 15, 2010
Add bookmark
#584
initial position
Nevil said:
Let me explain my thoughts a little further Kopite, re feminised seeds.
The best fem seeds would not be selfed! If I wanted to produce fems, I'd start with a true "lady" Say NL5. This would be represented by XX. The latent hermaphrodite I would choose would be one that doesn't show signs of masculinity under normal circumstances, but can be induced to produce some pollen when treated with hormones. Nevertheless, this parent would be represented by XX'. The X' represent the sex chromosome that carrying the latent hermaphrodite gene.
Therefore XX x XX' will give you 50% XX' and 50% XX(true females).
A female plant carrying a latent hermaphrodite gene when selfed is represented by the following. XX' x XX'. This will give you 50% XX', 25% XX (true female) and
25% X'X' ( strongly hermaphroditic)..
I know that this is an over simplification because of the various types and degrees of hermaphroditism, but in broad lines it will hold true to what ever degree the hermaphroditism is displayed.
NL5 was not sterile, the world is awash with it's progeny. It could be induced to produce male flowers, but the pollen sacks were empty. A true female.
This was my position when I entered this debate. People wanted to point out that my symbol XX' for a, shall we say intersex plant. Was not scientific enough and it was suggested that XXm would be more correct. From the material Darwin cites, it would seem that XXY would be more appropriate.
I would suggest that what we are really dealing with is X(XY) as the Y cannot be passed on separately, otherwise we would be getting true males from fem seed (no one seems to be suggesting that). From a lay persons perspective I think my symbols were clearer, but as I have been trying to say, the issue is not the symbol but the meaning behind it.
I refer you to the position I have taken earlier. Is this not in essence where we have arrived now?
N.
Nevil
Breeder
Sep 15, 2010
Add bookmark
#588
it would be interesting to reverse a male plant, and self it or cross with another reversed male, to see if we get all male offspring out of the seed?
Yep, done that. I selfed the HazeC male. Theoretically their should be 25% YY. I was looking for them.
I got about 33% females and 66% males, no intersex. I progeny tested maybe 20 males, All produced normal male to female ratio's and no intersex. The seeds had normal viability, so I guessed that YY would block seed growing in the first place.
None of the HzC male selfed, came close to being as good as HzC for breeding.
N.
Nevil
Breeder
Sep 21, 2010
Add bookmark
#670
And so we reach the cutting edge. At this point, no one can dredge up somebodies thesis on why a fem seed should produce an apparent male that did not produce viable pollen. Suddenly everybody is quiet. Now is the time to prove how clever you are. Stick your neck out, come up with a hypothesis. Isn't this what science is all about?
I've already taken the position that fem seeds can only be produced if the female used to provide the pollen is carrying a latent (or not) herm/intersex gene. A true female will not produce viable pollen.
I suspect that the strongest evidence against my position may come from the example we are now discussing, but you can hardly expect me to make your argument for you.
I may as well go back to getting stoned and talking to
myself.
N.
Nevil
Breeder
Aug 15, 2010
Add bookmark
#11
Just a few thoughts on feminised seed.
I've used fruiting hormones on HzC male to get it to produce female flowers. HzC squared. We still have some of these old seeds. They produced real males and real females.
I've used Gibberelic acid on NL5 to try to get it to produce male flowers. It did, about 5 flowers in a whole room full. The Anthers did NOT contain pollen. NL5 was a true female. A true female will not produce pollen. The ability to produce pollen is a hermaphroditic trait, which may be suppressed, but must be present to produce pollen.
There is a use for feminised seed in breeding, you get to see what the "males" phenotype is before crossing. 50% of the offspring will be true females, the only way to tell is to try and get pollen from the selected female. If it won't produce pollen it's a true female.
There is a better way to do things and that is to feminise the male to check the phenotype. I did this with my Red and Blue lines of Sk1 and got great
results.
N.
Nevil
Breeder
Sep 15, 2010
Add bookmark
#584
initial position
Nevil said:
Let me explain my thoughts a little further Kopite, re feminised seeds.
The best fem seeds would not be selfed! If I wanted to produce fems, I'd start with a true "lady" Say NL5. This would be represented by XX. The latent hermaphrodite I would choose would be one that doesn't show signs of masculinity under normal circumstances, but can be induced to produce some pollen when treated with hormones. Nevertheless, this parent would be represented by XX'. The X' represent the sex chromosome that carrying the latent hermaphrodite gene.
Therefore XX x XX' will give you 50% XX' and 50% XX(true females).
A female plant carrying a latent hermaphrodite gene when selfed is represented by the following. XX' x XX'. This will give you 50% XX', 25% XX (true female) and
25% X'X' ( strongly hermaphroditic)..
I know that this is an over simplification because of the various types and degrees of hermaphroditism, but in broad lines it will hold true to what ever degree the hermaphroditism is displayed.
NL5 was not sterile, the world is awash with it's progeny. It could be induced to produce male flowers, but the pollen sacks were empty. A true female.
This was my position when I entered this debate. People wanted to point out that my symbol XX' for a, shall we say intersex plant. Was not scientific enough and it was suggested that XXm would be more correct. From the material Darwin cites, it would seem that XXY would be more appropriate.
I would suggest that what we are really dealing with is X(XY) as the Y cannot be passed on separately, otherwise we would be getting true males from fem seed (no one seems to be suggesting that). From a lay persons perspective I think my symbols were clearer, but as I have been trying to say, the issue is not the symbol but the meaning behind it.
I refer you to the position I have taken earlier. Is this not in essence where we have arrived now?
N.
Wow what a post. Some full stops might have been handy. Ok let's dissect this bit by bit, as I recognise you want to understand this, it's just that you haven't done the reading. To start with I hate talking about hemp, and trying to relate it to drug cannabis, but ok.
XY is normal for a male diploid D.C. who operates on an active Y system of sexual expression, yes.
Ok so a polyploid hemp plant with 6 individual strands of DNA in each cell, gotcha so far. Now for it's offspring to have "messed up genes" (the precise nature of I'm unsure, but let's say it includes any possibility of the definition "messed up") one of three things happened, either it itself has "messed up genes" and passed them on, it's partner did, or something very odd happened at the point of reproduction. Hopefully we are still on the same page.
The next bit I'm unsure whether when you say "it gets crossed to a diploid" did you mean the P1 Hexaploid gets crossed to a diploid, or it's offspring, the one with "messed up genes" gets crossed to a diploid? I'll assume the first option, only because there is essential relevant info missing for the second. You are crossing a hexaploid to a diploid? Can that be done? I genuinely don't know if that's possible. I suspect there would be too much of a size difference between the acceptable pollen and the pollen from a hexaploid. The gametes would be triploids rather than haploids. I have serious doubts about compatibility there, but I just can't say for sure that it's possible or not, but let's continue. If it was possible, the offspring would be tetraploids. Very common in hemp, so let's for the sake of this, say that's how this farmer made his tetraploid hemp, rather than either of the easy ways. Ok I think I'm still following.
This "precursor to a breeding output capable of creating a female" bit is confusing. Are you saying this tetraploid in question is a female, or are you saying the tetraploid, when bred with something else, can have female kids? Only exclusively female, or females along with males?
Now this female "when feminised creates an aneuploid female" can I just check that you understand an aneuploid is a haploid, and so only has one sex chromosome? So what you are asking seems to be *can a tetraploid give birth to haploid offspring*? Or are you asking, * will gametes from a tetraploid be haploids with an X chromosome*?
Well gametes from this tetraploid would in fact be diploids, and so the answer is no to both.
Now there is a question about triploids. Ok let's tackle that one, This female selfed, ok, I can picture that, in your hypothetical, is creating an XXY triploid? Or is it creating a diploid chimera, where one strand contains both an X and Y chromosome? (Both impossible from a selfed female).
It would be so much easier to answer your questions if they were written coherently.
You tell me that I gave testimony to..... ( No, never given testimony, never even made a statement to the police other than "no comment" or "well, there's no need to be a dick is there"?
Let's try again, [sigh],
You say "you gave testimony 1 is inactivated, but 2 are involved...you have written the rules XXY offspring can't happen, not me"
I said a single Y will silence two X's just as easily as it silences one. I have never said XXY can't happen, quote me. It would be relatively easy to create an XXY OR an XXX. I will say you can't create a YYY. BUT AGAIN I AM NOT TELLING NATURE WHAT TO DO. I am reporting what the science says. The science is not creating rules, it is documenting the facts and processes that exist. Nature isn't creating rules, it's merely following a path of evolution. Not all evolution is beneficial.
So if you could offer some clarifications, I can nail down a specific, targeted response.
Last edited:
Lol, Nevil may have been successful in the business, but that was due to lack of competition. He clearly knew fuck all about genetics. I'd love to see kopites response. I bet he kicked his arse all over the place. Kopite knows his stuff inside out and Nevil was a moron.
Just want to add, I learned a great deal from kopite, he kicked my arse more than once into learning what was what. In terms of genetics Kung Fu, I still call him master.
Just want to add, I learned a great deal from kopite, he kicked my arse more than once into learning what was what. In terms of genetics Kung Fu, I still call him master.
Last edited:
mudballs
Well-known member
Yeah idk anything about Nevils knowledge base, and sure sounds irrelevant...
"can I just check that you understand an aneuploid is a haploid, and so only has one sex chromosome? "
Some freak accident didn't make a haploid...it made a polyploid, from a double sex chromosome plant, or perhaps a plant with so much chromosomal aberration the underlying sexual plasticity inherent in C.Sativa brought forth a plant that did have just enough cross over a male can be produced. Without exogenous STS reverseal methods
"can I just check that you understand an aneuploid is a haploid, and so only has one sex chromosome? "
Some freak accident didn't make a haploid...it made a polyploid, from a double sex chromosome plant, or perhaps a plant with so much chromosomal aberration the underlying sexual plasticity inherent in C.Sativa brought forth a plant that did have just enough cross over a male can be produced. Without exogenous STS reverseal methods
CharlesU Farley
Well-known member
You would be incorrect, on both counts. The threads are easy to find on the Mr Nice forum. They had civilized discussions, there was no ass kicking to be done. Two people who knew what they were talking about had disagreements and discussed it.
If you think Neville was a _moron_, don't think I need to have any further interactions with you. You may be knowledgeable on genetics but you have absolutely no earthly idea the impact he had on cannabis development.
I know I'm rather pugnacious and combative in a lot of threads but your insistence on the term "kicking arse" has absolutely no meaning whatsoever in this thread.
It's not a zero sum game.
And in a kicking ass contest, I have no doubt mudballs would eviscerate you.
Perhaps its English slang that hasn't made it to your part of the world yet, no violence or hostility whatsoever is involved in an intellectual arse kicking, it merely means that one party outclasses the other in terms of knowledge.
If you are talking about violence, then I too have no doubt mudballs, or anyone else would be able to do physical harm to me, I'm old and disabled, not much threat to anyone.
If you are talking about violence, then I too have no doubt mudballs, or anyone else would be able to do physical harm to me, I'm old and disabled, not much threat to anyone.
So your big revelation is that one of the seeds from a selfed male, was shock horror, a male? Ground breaking.
Ok, let's speculate on possibilities.
Forget the jargon, basics.
A plant was grown, it showed what sex? Male female Hermie?
It was selfed, either by itself or someone else's hand. By whatever means, naturally or by chemical induction. ( Someone sprayed it).
The offspring contained at least one seed, that when grown, was itself a male? Or at least presented as male and called itself he/him?
Are these the facts I have to work with? Anything else?
So many options here.
At least confirm the basics facts before I write an irrelevant essay.
And folks : If anyone takes offence at my style, don't, I'm getting old, old men as they come to the end of their game, tend to try to pass on what they've learned to the next generation. But being older, we have less time and patience for diplomacy than we did. And I'm afraid I wasnt very diplomatic as a youngster
Forget the jargon, basics.
A plant was grown, it showed what sex? Male female Hermie?
It was selfed, either by itself or someone else's hand. By whatever means, naturally or by chemical induction. ( Someone sprayed it).
The offspring contained at least one seed, that when grown, was itself a male? Or at least presented as male and called itself he/him?
Are these the facts I have to work with? Anything else?
So many options here.
At least confirm the basics facts before I write an irrelevant essay.
And folks : If anyone takes offence at my style, don't, I'm getting old, old men as they come to the end of their game, tend to try to pass on what they've learned to the next generation. But being older, we have less time and patience for diplomacy than we did. And I'm afraid I wasnt very diplomatic as a youngster
