100% male with feminized seeds?

[led05]

This is how the famous strain Peyote Purple from Cannabiogen came about.

But they sold the ensuing "regular" seeds as 95% female.

Makes me think it was not a real male but just a hermie that expressed towards the male side very heavily. But what do I know, certainly not how the chromosomes looked under a microscope..

Anyway, there have been many arguments about this. With people being convinced both ways.

Or pollen flies @ and there “Fem” seeds had some regs mixed in from Reg pollen…

Didn’t wesos/huesos make Peyote Purple for Charlie anyhow…?

***********************

a post I made years ago elsewhere on related subjects

• Hermaphrodite: only hermie plants (this means staminate + pistillate flowers at the same bract.
• Monoecious: only monoecious plants (this means staminate + pistillate flowers within the same plant.
• Dioecious: only dioecious plants (this means either staminate or pistillate plants, but firm sex regardless).
• Gynodioecious: both firm females + hermies.
• Androdioecious: both firm males + hermies.

""Most flowering plants are hermaphroditic, and unisexual individuals (dioecious) have evolved from hermaphroditic ancestors many times (Renner, 2014). Trioecy is an uncommon sexual system in which hermaphrodites, females, and males coexist in some species. Trioecy occurs during the evolutionary transition from hermaphroditism to dioecy (Charlesworth and Charlesworth, 1978, Ross, 1982, Spigler and Ashman, 2012). Trioecy is a stable evolutionary stage under pollen limitation of female seed production because pollen limitation reduces the fitness of females but not self-fertile hermaphrodites, counteracting the seed fertility advantage of females (Maurice and Fleming, 1995). "

CONTD.......

 

[led05]

of course I never say never....

...but I have grown a lot of fems and except for female s1’s[ many times]

throwing out one or two male pods at the first or second internode..

I have yet to come across a true male I could believe .. from the selfed seed

twice in 20 years I have had one plant male ..

but every time there was possibility it was either an errant seed or errant pollen grain

...so I am in your club

Add a 3rd person to it - this club

 

[goingrey]

Or pollen flies @ and there “Fem” seeds had some regs mixed in from Reg pollen…

Didn’t wesos/huesos make Peyote Purple for Charlie anyhow…?

***********************

a post I made years ago elsewhere on related subjects

• Hermaphrodite: only hermie plants (this means staminate + pistillate flowers at the same bract.
• Monoecious: only monoecious plants (this means staminate + pistillate flowers within the same plant.
• Dioecious: only dioecious plants (this means either staminate or pistillate plants, but firm sex regardless).
• Gynodioecious: both firm females + hermies.
• Androdioecious: both firm males + hermies.

""Most flowering plants are hermaphroditic, and unisexual individuals (dioecious) have evolved from hermaphroditic ancestors many times (Renner, 2014). Trioecy is an uncommon sexual system in which hermaphrodites, females, and males coexist in some species. Trioecy occurs during the evolutionary transition from hermaphroditism to dioecy (Charlesworth and Charlesworth, 1978, Ross, 1982, Spigler and Ashman, 2012). Trioecy is a stable evolutionary stage under pollen limitation of female seed production because pollen limitation reduces the fitness of females but not self-fertile hermaphrodites, counteracting the seed fertility advantage of females (Maurice and Fleming, 1995). "

CONTD.......

Rogue pollen might be the most likely explanation but maybe not the only one, people claim to have experienced it with no pollen contamination possible. Who knows, just guesses, would need to look at the reversed pollen donor used under a microscope to see what kind of chromosomes it has.

 

[mexcurandero420]

Polygenic traits are extremely complex...
Even managing a few monogenic traits is already a titanic task. With the case of corn domestication, we can get an idea of how difficult it is to modify only 4 or 5 monogenic traits to convert teosinte into corn.

I love this video, if anyone hasn't seen it, I recommend it 100%

The Mysterious Origin of Corn

Great vid

 

[PetePrice]

Didn't wesos have a hand in the Ogers fem seed that put out "males" too?

 

[Mithridate]

There's the old thread where they explain the whole peyote purple inception on here. Charlis there... Tom.. you

 

[PetePrice]

There's the old thread where they explain the whole peyote purple inception on here. Charlis there... Tom.. you

I know but I'm just wondering how many seeds weso went thru etc I remember the Ogers being described as ibl etc but what was the pollen sourc e? Was it a "male" he got in S1s to start it with the Ogers? Think there's a thread on here so will dig that out .. will have to visit that PP thread again see what I got wrong....

Found the Ogers thread and the other one, what a sparring session that was for GMT and TH and a butchering from the mods...

 

[H e d g e]

I only make 1 project in each property and don't run Male projects at same time as Feminized projects so mine there was zero possibility of being stray pollen

You might’ve picked it up on your clothes between grows, I’ve found whole leaves in my hair while out shopping. You’d have to dna test it to know for sure.

 

[led05]

You might’ve picked it up on your clothes between grows, I’ve found whole leaves in my hair while out shopping. You’d have to dna test it to know for sure.

Exactly… Pollen gets around like the town hooker, always taking a ride; human error or contamination or whatever you want to call it is significantly (exponentially) more likely than all X’s making a pure Y.

The excuse being used by some in here that many breeders / banks offer a disclaimer of 99% Fem rate or whatever doesn’t prove anything to me; Id argue that disclaimer is due human error much more than genetic mutation or “miracles” and a disclaimer to avoid potential liability for known likelihood of human error / contamination…. As the saying goes “we’re only human”

 

[CannaZen]

Exactly… Pollen gets around like the town hooker, always taking a ride; human error or contamination or whatever you want to call it is significantly (exponentially) more likely than all X’s making a pure Y.

The excuse being used by some in here that many breeders / banks offer a disclaimer of 99% Fem rate or whatever doesn’t prove anything to me; Id argue that disclaimer is due human error much more than genetic mutation or “miracles” and a disclaimer to avoid potential liability for known likelihood of human error / contamination…. As the saying goes “we’re only human”

Yeah that is correct. Myth debunked. Although some plants are mostly male females I mean I've had one and I didn't order fem exclusives exactly. Sorry this post isn't worth reading. That is exactly why the 1%

 

[kendermag]

I share the idea that the main cause of these appearances of males could be due to pollination errors, or due to human errors in the handling and packaging of seeds, since many banks sell feminized and regular seeds.

But I do not dare to say that it is impossible, since this phenomenon happened 28 million years ago in Cannabis.
But it must not have been something so extraordinarily rare since many dioecious plant varieties did the same thing independently, that is, it has happened many times. There are two main theories that attempt to explain the transition from monoicism to diocism in plants, the 2-gene mutation theory, and the one-gene mutation theory.

But just as monoicism has remained in the DNA of cannabis to this day, this rare mechanism could have remained as well.

We will hardly be able to prove anything.. It would be necessary to do a DNA test on the supposed male, to see if he really is, and if so, also test one of his sisters, to see if they are real brothers, and it is not a male created with uncontrolled pollen.

 

[GMT]

But I do not dare to say that it is impossible, since this phenomenon happened 28 million years ago in Cannabis

No it didn't. One of the dinosaurs didn't have a chicken for a child either. These things happen in baby steps over millions of years, not in one giant leap in evolution.

 

[kendermag]

No it didn't. One of the dinosaurs didn't have a chicken for a child either. These things happen in baby steps over millions of years, not in one giant leap in evolution.

Ducks, cats, dogs... and now dinosaurs and chickens... Again with comparisons that have nothing to do with plants.
Isn't more logical for you to provide even a single link in the entire thread to a scientific study?

Anyway, here's another interesting scientific study explaining posibles pathways from monoecism to dioecism:

Two genes theory
Dioecy was artificially engineered in the monoecious species maize (Zea mays) and melon (Cucumis melo).
Nearly a century ago, two genetically interacting genes were identified to control sex expression in monoecious maize: the TASSEL SEED (Ts) and the SILKLESS (Sk) gene.
In a sk (SILKLESS gene) mutant background, a single segregating ts (TASSEL SEED gene) mutation could be employed for the artificial production of dioecious maize (Jones, 1934).

One gene theory
The diversity of sexual systems in plants indicates various mechanisms, including sex determination via a single sex switch (female ↔ male). Experimental support for such switches in dioecious plant species was provided by Akagi et al. (2014) in the Caucasian persimmon and by Müller et al. (2020) in Populus spp.
A male-specific sex-determining gene was described in the Caucasian persimmon (Diospyros lotus), that presents a male heterogametic system (XY) and a small SDR (Akagi et al., 2014). The male-specific Oppressor of MeGI (OGI) produces an RNA hairpin and, through a small RNA-based mechanism apparently causing DNA methylation, represses the autosomal MALE GROWTH INHIBITOR (MeGI) gene, allowing male development.

The Diversity and Dynamics of Sex Determination in Dioecious Plants

 

[GMT]

Ducks, cats, dogs... and now dinosaurs and chickens... Again with comparisons that have nothing to do with plants.
Isn't more logical for you to provide even a single link in the entire thread to a scientific study?

If you don't understand the usage of metaphors, and won't read my explanations that are linked to, in posts 38 and more importantly post 40, what can I do? I know you didn't read them, because I linked two studies to the posts to prove they were valid. Studies first posted up in Sam's bibliography.
You have to do the reading, and you need the comprehension skills to understand what you are reading. This isn't the matrix, I can't just download it into your mind for you. But, if you don't understand a simple metaphor, like : yes chickens evolved from T-rexs, but no T-rex hatched a chicken. Then how can you understand, if Y evolved from X, it did not do so in one generation, and will never do so?

 

[kendermag]

If you don't understand the usage of metaphors, and won't read my explanations that are linked to, in posts 38 and more importantly post 40, what can I do? I know you didn't read them, because I linked two studies to the posts to prove they were valid. Studies first posted up in Sam's bibliography.
You have to do the reading, and you need the comprehension skills to understand what you are reading. This isn't the matrix, I can't just download it into your mind for you. But, if you don't understand a simple metaphor, like : yes chickens evolved from T-rexs, but no T-rex hatched a chicken. Then how can you understand, if Y evolved from X, it did not do so in one generation, and will never do so?

It makes no sense to compare the evolution of dinosaurs until they became birds, since it was a process infinitely longer and more complex than the transition from monoicism to dioicism in plants. Which, as has been exposed, can be as simple as the mutation of a single gene.

 

[ojd]

You might’ve picked it up on your clothes between grows, I’ve found whole leaves in my hair while out shopping. You’d have to dna test it to know for sure.

I don't even go to another seed project in the same day so very doubtful.

But like I mentioned before if that was the case it would be clear to see from the offspring once run , and 1st ever Freak Project was the Haze Freak and offspring was clearly all AG13 Haze dominant ( and was a AG13 x GSC Fem Freak Male)

 

[ojd]

Exactly… Pollen gets around like the town hooker, always taking a ride; human error or contamination or whatever you want to call it is significantly (exponentially) more likely than all X’s making a pure Y.

The excuse being used by some in here that many breeders / banks offer a disclaimer of 99% Fem rate or whatever doesn’t prove anything to me; Id argue that disclaimer is due human error much more than genetic mutation or “miracles” and a disclaimer to avoid potential liability for known likelihood of human error / contamination…. As the saying goes “we’re only human”

I didn't believe it myself until it happened to me , and then did research online and realised it does happen very occasionally ( and don't know why/How etc) but you contact every well know seed maker who has produced released 1,000's of Feminized seed packs ( and grows 100's of packs to) and guaranteed most would of experienced this issue.

Most would just throw away so probably don't have enough experience with them.

I only run mine because the Haze involved was very special and I thought why not see what happens and openly explained online when running it how it was prodcued and could be a hermie festival .

 

[GMT]

I'm tired of arguing about this now. I've explained everything, I think people just need to accept, some people think the world is 7,000 years old. You can't use logic sometimes, people believe what serves their own lives.
GMT out.

 

[H e d g e]

There’s always more to learn, even with a dna test I’d still be on the fence. You get the best views from up here.

 

[PetePrice]

Ducks, cats, dogs... and now dinosaurs and chickens... Again with comparisons that have nothing to do with plants.
Isn't more logical for you to provide even a single link in the entire thread to a scientific study?

Anyway, here's another interesting scientific study explaining posibles pathways from monoecism to dioecism:

Two genes theory
Dioecy was artificially engineered in the monoecious species maize (Zea mays) and melon (Cucumis melo).
Nearly a century ago, two genetically interacting genes were identified to control sex expression in monoecious maize: the TASSEL SEED (Ts) and the SILKLESS (Sk) gene.
In a sk (SILKLESS gene) mutant background, a single segregating ts (TASSEL SEED gene) mutation could be employed for the artificial production of dioecious maize (Jones, 1934).

One gene theory
The diversity of sexual systems in plants indicates various mechanisms, including sex determination via a single sex switch (female ↔ male). Experimental support for such switches in dioecious plant species was provided by Akagi et al. (2014) in the Caucasian persimmon and by Müller et al. (2020) in Populus spp.
A male-specific sex-determining gene was described in the Caucasian persimmon (Diospyros lotus), that presents a male heterogametic system (XY) and a small SDR (Akagi et al., 2014). The male-specific Oppressor of MeGI (OGI) produces an RNA hairpin and, through a small RNA-based mechanism apparently causing DNA methylation, represses the autosomal MALE GROWTH INHIBITOR (MeGI) gene, allowing male development.

The Diversity and Dynamics of Sex Determination in Dioecious Plants

Is this from the Cronk paper? Leans on Lloyds past works... But yeah the transition didn't happen overnight even though they did it artificially here...

But we with canna need to except it's sub dioecious and act accordingly.

I will have to reread the paper

Odd but the paper you linked has different authors, this is the one I read -

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2021.0486