100% male with feminized seeds?

[mudballs]

"Ok, let's speculate on possibilities"
Fkn finally!

 

[GMT]

Well if you're not adding more info here goes

1. It's an x to autosome line, read my posts linked in this thread, in the lemon Thai thread for that explanation, it's a bit long winded.

2. One of the grandparents had a faulty X chromosome. When the S1 generation was made, 25% of the offspring could have a double faulty X that allowed the pollen producing parts of the autosome to do their thing while failing to activate the female flower growing part. They effectively have no X chromosome.

3. Similar to two, but instead of it being a faulty X, a fault developed in the autosome, which when meeting itself in the S1 gen, effectively did the same thing, only instead of not giving the instructions to the autosome, the autosome didn't respond correctly to the instructions received.

4. The S1 plant, somehow came into contact with and ingested silver of some sort. Effectively reversing it.

5. Stray pollen with a Y chromosome somehow reached the P1 while making S1 seeds and an F1 seed was created that was male.

6. At source the seeds were dropped and an earlier seed was picked up with the rest and bagged up as the same batch.

7. Outright dishonesty on the part of the reporter.

8. Something else I haven't thought of.

 

[mudballs]

...shoulda led with that chief

 

[GMT]

I did try.

I lead with number 1.
Number 2 and 3 lead to more than one "male". And the story is a solitary male.
Number 4 is unlikely due to how much work is involved in getting dosages etc right.
Number 5, is always possible, but it's not the story I was debunking, also applies to 6.
7 I have been fairly vocal about.
Number 8 is what you've been telling me all this time lol.

 

[superx]

I'm certainly not taking offence at your style, on the contrary man. (You have a wicked sense of humour) im Irish which helps I guess.

I have been going back and forward to this thread for a long time trying to educate myself and understand( unfortunately to no avail) just when I think I have grasped what's going on it vanishes into thin air.
I have read some of those notes, again they just put my head into a knot..

I find it fascinating as much as I do frustrating, I also know it's only a matter of time before the penny drops and I will be able to grasp some of it.. (having a genuine interest)
I appreciate you going into detail and I also appreciate mudballs input you both are obviously very knowledgeable on the subject at hand.

Respect to you guys... Every day is most certainly a learing one.

 

[GMT]

Ah, Irish, no stranger to the banter then . Thanks for the kind words, it's nice to hear. Yeah you'll get it. Icmag has always leaned to the breeders, it's by far the best around. Read the links to the lemon Thai thread (posted in this thread) they are essential to this.
Good luck, feel free to ask anything anytime, I'm a boring fuck, so I've always got time

 

[mudballs]

Wtf are you laughing at? ...you on ignore cuz i know you ain't got nothing of scientific value to inject into this.

 

[mudballs]

Meiotic phase 2 isn't supposed to complete if something is messed up...that's why this is just off the scale not supposed to happen

 

[Bro.]

"They identified over 10,500 differentially expressed genes, of which, around 200 are potentially responsible for male flower development on female plants"

More complicated than just x or y...

"Apart from that, the molecular mechanisms underlying dioecy are essentially unknown but, considering that this condition is fully reversible (e.g., through chemical products treatment), the hypothesis that those genic regions involved in both sexes development remain potentially functional throughout the entire life cycle cannot be excluded (Di Stilio et al., 2005; Khadka et al., 2019)."

Note the use of the term hypothesis, there are no absolutes with this subject. In time we will understand more fully but even with a fully mapped genome there will still be mystery.

100% brother, thx for this input

 

[goingrey]

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.

Shantibaba is selling NL5 fems nowadays, found that pretty interesting.

 

[igrowone]

Frontiers | Why not XY? Male monoecious sexual phenotypes challenge the female monoecious paradigm in Cannabis sativa L.

Monoecy in Cannabis sativa L. has long been considered an industrially important trait due to the increased uniformity it offers and was thought to be exclus...

www.frontiersin.org

 

[mudballs]

"indicating the monoecious trait was fixed through one round of inbreeding, suggesting a simple mode of inheritance"
well that solves a lot of questions as to how weird stuff can happen...now what

 

[mudballs]

For those not into this stuff...the study didn't make anything we would call sweat fire...no, they made something that flowers male on lowers and female flowers in top portion of plant. That's not the focus though for us...the fact the plant genetics allow an X/Y monoecious is just the nail in the coffin.

 

[Tynehead Tom]

Shantibaba is selling NL5 fems nowadays, found that pretty interesting.

we had the NL5 clone straight from the HA's in the mid 90's. Cash cropped her for several years and did some breeding work with her as well. I can say with 100% certainty that clone will produce the odd very hard to find staminate growth but the anthers don't produce any pollen. Never found or heard report of any unintended seeds in the great many pounds were grew for all those years(95 to 05)

 

[Tynehead Tom]

Frontiers | Why not XY? Male monoecious sexual phenotypes challenge the female monoecious paradigm in Cannabis sativa L.

Monoecy in Cannabis sativa L. has long been considered an industrially important trait due to the increased uniformity it offers and was thought to be exclus...

www.frontiersin.org

damn..... that was deep but after pages of this thread I am starting to get some understanding.
What that article suggests makes me want to have this line I have tested. Also, it's really too bad chunkypigs killed the cookieboi male ..... would have been an interesting plant to do a full run of these tests on

 

[mudballs]

..the fact the plant genetics allow an X/Y monoecious is just the nail in the coffin.

Now amplify that...there's natural selection and human intervention, cultivation...now add the number of growers and crosses happening, polyhybrids, outside natural selection gene pool, and you begin to see how we're really 15,000 monkeys using a small typewriter with only a few keys (X/Y chromosome material is only so long) and shift key lol....you're gonna get a weird book out of those monkeys before you get to shakespeare.

 

[GMT]

That's a very specific mutation of the Y chromosome. I don't think we should be writing off the basic laws, just because a mutant was found.
[Just for Mud] just because one monkey draws Mickey mouse, doesn't mean the rest of us are about to open up theme parks.

 

[mudballs]

No you're right, as in 28million years ago the plant evolved and it took until 2024 for a few triploids and that weird thing in the study to occur...you're totally right we shouldn't expect anymore oddities.

 

[mudballs]

That post is dripping with sarcasm if anyone wasn't following...

 

[mudballs]

You ever look into labs that need fast evolution?