a 'true' male from S1 seeds?

[Tom Hill]

No you were right that was my attempt at a compliment.

What I meant was, cannabis would have been dioecious imo, prior to domestication, if were so simple as copying error, for dioecy is certainly the default. For the simple reason that a male plant can produce more pollen than an intersex individual, and over not much time in evolution, completely take over - but it hasn't, not by a long shot ime. And I think that supports a more complex situation going on. But this is maybe rather off the course maybe, and I shouldn't let my eye twitching due to our differing guesses on that particular section of subject derail the train too badly, my apologies sir.

 

[Buddy Holly]

the simplest explanation for what you and your friends have seen smoketrees is this... a butch bitch. or a lady boy. depends on your perspective i guess. imagine a chick that has a hairy upper lip and can turn a wrench harder than you.

 

[GMT]

oh no, I'm always up for "evolving" a discussion, particularly with you sir. Our differences have served me well on many occasions as they tend to force me to focus on issues that I would not otherwise do.
In this case, I have pondered that myself, lets get away from my term error, as it only applies in a niche situation, and also implies an objective perfect state rather than my subjective desire. Lets use dioecious and sub dioecious. In a large population, consisting of both D and SD plants, yes the D males and females will each produce more offspring. But what would prevent the SD individuals from also contributing to the next generation? Sheer numbers alone don't prevent the continued success of the SD population. In addition, if the SD population, when pollinating or being pollinated by D individuals, gave rise to further SD offspring, their numbers would rise. If only D's could pollinate Ds, and SDs SDs, then the numbers of Ds would drastically outnumber the SDs. But since thats not the situation, I wonder how Ds survive in the wild. I suspect its only the fact that male Ds produce more pollen and female, more seeds, that let them survive at all. In that situation, its probably more appropriate to refer to the population as being trioecious. A term I have to admit, first seeing referenced by English Rick.

 

[Tom Hill]

I don't think it's that monoecious plants are prevented from contributing to the next generation in a subdioecious population, but rather they are in for an uphill battle regarding fitness, compared to the seed of their gynoecious sisters which are not subject to the same degree of intensive inbreeding. Therefore, over time, they are not favored for survival. It is only because it is a case of biometrical genetics controled by many autosomal factors, recombining to occur here this gen in this individual, then there in that the next, that the case of intersex cannabis has survived as long as it has, imo. And also why as you know I feel getting all uptight about it is kinda tehee. -T

 

[GMT]

lol, I just knew you were gonna pull me up on refering to individual plants as being SD rather than the population. Also thanks for all the rep, I did a double take when I saw it.

I do see your point, and yes when self fertilizing, I accept the argument as valid. But the cross pollination that must also occur will be what I suspect is keeping them going. The ratio's probably swing wildly from one population to the next, with neither state gaining a total grip on the population. (and yeah I know thats what you just said, but many wont). It is an interesting one that. On a slightly diff topic, do you know off the top of your head, how common polyploids are in wild canna populations? I know they are fairly common in hemp, but am unsure about wild canna.

 

[Mate Dave]

Testing plants to breed with is a basic skill, it is mother nature that enables this kind of selection in the wild, she is over qualified. Polyploids exist because of natural selection causing the Heterozygote to be dominant over the homozygote, it's basic line fitness. The polyploids with fitness and not latent disorders are much more potent and survive to pollinate. The recombination from out-crossing genes favours the Heterozygote and produces tetraploids and so on.

I would not make a cross with what I have learned without looking at the chromosome count, its the basics that make things excellent when nature isn't in control.

 

[xmobotx]

so, anyway ~the OP proposed this scenario based on observing a 'male' plant from selfed seeds {right?}
BUT; i read through the OP's grow link and saw NO male plant
did I just miss it?

at whatever rate; i agree {based on my own experience and observation} with GMT

if the OP indeed germ'd a male plant from a self'd 'female;' then the self'd 'female' was in fact not 100% female

now; i do not mean it was hermi {this as mentioned speaks to 'expression'} but I mean there are male hermis presenting female flowers and there are female hermis presenting male flowers
NTM hermi plants presenting as either sex but not both {expression}

it may not be the best course to look at this from a recessive/dominant mendel genetics framework {as we typically consider the passing of traits} gender may actually be simpler than that

FTMP most of us do not have the tools at our disposal to scientifically quantify these things but; it is not a huge thing to verify w/ breeding {assuming one can segregate and keep track of their experiments}
the critical element is 'how will this plant perform as a contributor in my breeding project?' if the progeny tends towards hermi or super males; that may not be desirable for the typical grower here.

one distinction worthy of consideration is how the plant managed to exhibit the hermi trait?
a breeder who chooses plants which tend to herm on their own risks 'feminised' seeds which tend to herm or produce males {but the breeder can confirm by testing the seed progeny}
a breeder who 'reverses' a plant using CS or ?? stands a better chance of producing truly feminised seeds {and the breeder should still test progeny}

All this because; w/ observation alone, we cannot know we have a female plant @ the chromosomal level ~which can easily skew observations

testing progeny is merely a confidence builder in this matter w/o lab analysis

 

[igrowone]

i was reading on some of the info here, i'll address xmobotx's questions as best i can
the 'male', such as it is, is in my grow signature, doesn't look like much of anything from the pic which is several weeks old
i will try to post something better in the next day or so, crappy camera so details may not be up to snuff
i believe the parent hermied from genetic reasons, it hermied very quickly, was standard seed, not femme
it was a brainwreck and there were grow logs on the breeders site that showed it had some of this instability
i'll leave out the breeder for the moment since his seeds aren't sold on the affiliate sites

 

[xmobotx]

and i still dont see a male

 

[igrowone]

at this point, it's just my own visual inspection, i will post the best pics i can

 

[xmobotx]

what i am saying is 'i see no mention of the male in your thread nor pix etc fem and herm but no male ~maybe you have a specific post #?'

 

[igrowone]

ahh, that makes sense, the last time i posted on that thread i had just flipped it into flower, didn't know what i had at that time
this thread is the first post i made on the subject, no particular reason, i will have to update that thread at some point

 

[Hammerhead]

we went through this already in my thread..Got out of hand and was locked.

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=231950&page=15

 

[igrowone]

i did see that Hammerhead, still, the price of threads is cheap
but thank you for posting the thread, it gave me some clue - maybe

 

[igrowone]

a picture seemed in order, quality is poor even for my cheap camera
about 14 inches tall, 8-9 nodes
no pistils visible, balls have been plucked religiously because i thought this was a hermie
was actually hoping for a hermie, having a male is a small disaster for me at this time
this thing was not wanted

 

[mexcurandero420]

The natural state in which hemp appears was and is dioecious. Monoeciousness is artificial in hemp, it can only exist with the help of man, and without selection, the dioecious state will return in two or three generations. It is therefore very hard and demanding to keep 90 to 95 % monoeciousness during seed multiplications. Apart from that, however, monoecious hemp is appropriate only when the crop is grown for so-called double use, i.e. when both stem and seed are harvested. This is the case in France and in the former Soviet Union, where most crops are grown for double use. In a dioecious crop, the male plants will be strongly deteriorated when the crop is harvested at seed ripeness, so in this case one needs monoecious cultivars. In Hungary and its neighbouring countries, like formerly in Italy, this double use is unknown. Here fibre hemp is grown as a dense crop which is harvested at the time of male flowering ("green hemp"), while seed production takes place in crops grown at a low plant density and with completely different growing techniques. For this 'classic' use monoecious cultivars are of no use, so we never bred a monoecious cultivar.

Iván Bócsa

Keep on growing

 

[Tom Hill]

Nobody then? ^^^ Well I for one am not buying that, no fuggin way. I do however embrace the concept over a deal more generations. Earlier it was put forward that intersex'd was often only the pollen source and thus outcrossing, but still, was that individual the product of selfing, or selfing of selfing? There is maths to denote the probability of that and the poiint is, the probability of a gynoecious individual -in an op population- is zero.

 

[Tom Hill]

outcrossing can and does restore some portion of the deficit of heterozygotes caused by inbreeding, but that is not complete, and it too, has a number to denote the extent of repair, it's not 100%..

 

[xmobotx]

yeah i couldnt quite buy in to that

even though i already understand that canabis sativa IS hemp; when you start seeing info come from the hemp side of the equation {i.e. presented by hemp farmers} the potential for confusion is high

since hemp farming is done w/ incredibly close spacings and emphasis is on the stalk; it would seem the consequences of open pollination would be exaggerated where the article seems to infer the opposite {how could one make any selections, do any separation or; really any genetic influence in the open field~when the plants arent but 4" apart?}

tremendous amount of confusion relevant to this particular subject

then; that is the science ~confusing since it doesnt coincide well w/ my obwervations

 

[frito bandito]

lol @ some people's kids. ever noticed how the older you get, certain "types" of people stand out more and more clearly? it gets to where a person can say just three words and already you know more about them than you really care to. seen a billion guys exactly like GMT in my years. there could be a grower with decades of experience telling him a certain thing, but he will pull out an abstract from some half assed "science" paper written by an undergrad at Mary's School of Corn Farming and point to that as absolute definite proof that he's right. he claims to be a scientist but worships his Ego, not Nature. he's a concrete thinker, trapped in a mental rut, incapable of uttering an original thought. to exist in this world folks like him need rules and guidelines to follow and without them they'd be totally lost. his forefathers may have been preachers, but he's a totally different sort, a "Scientist." he quotes empty scriptures from his Holy science book and feels it's an adequate substitute for thinking and listening. i guess it's far easier just to say "i'm right, you're wrong, shut up" then to logically justify your position...especially when your position is wrong and does not fit the observations which have been made of this and other plants.

i love how noobs revealing their noobishness by their thinking that cannabis inbreeding is somehow totally unnatural and wrong, and you can see clearly how all of their "thoughts" have been colored by this fallacy. the only reason they hold this idea is because the only plant they "know" is cannabis and they've never been exposed to anything else. yet 90%+ of flowering plants (100% of which are genetically related to cannabis, btw) reproduce by inbreeding. some plants inbreed exclusively and have absolutely no ill effects from it. for example, tomato. others, such as corn, will suffer from inbreeding depression in short order. then there's other plants like cannabis which are in between, and are generally outbreeders but can tolerate a fair degree of inbreeding. you can inbreed a cannabis plant, i.e. take s1, s2, s3 etc for 3-4+ generations without ill effect. it's totally natural.

anyone who thinks this is somehow screwing up the chromosome, is arguing from a position of ignorance, not knowledge. neither STS nor CS causes chromosomal damage. the only potential "harm" that can occur is inbreeding depression, and that only happens because inbreeding causes a natural reduction in overall heterozygosity with each generation. some heterozygosity is needed is needed for proper growth, and the deleterious traits are caused by an over-accumulation of dominant and recessive genes. to correct the situation and restore vigor all you have to do is outcross.

as for how sex is determined in cannabis? i dont know the exact genes that control the process and why, nor every detail of how it works. i dont have an answer i can give and point to and say "that's it, period, end of discussion." and anyone who claims to is wrong. all i've got is what i've seen and observed and what others have seen and observed. based on that, yes, true male plants do come from S1s sometimes. it happens. and yes, because it happens, the old "XY" myth of sexual determination is clearly wrong. a person who truly understands what science is about would be looking at this data and using it to patch up their theory, not the other way around.

from what i can tell it appears each plant determines its sex early in veg. it seems a variety of environmental and other factors come into play and determine levels of certain chemicals that get built up/destroyed, and at a certain point is determination is made, which then becomes permanently fixed. it seems the "default" is to become female but certain factors/stresses can override this and cause it to become male or female. a Y chromosome then is not something that guarantees maleness, but contains genes which "override" some of the sex determining factors, pushing the plant towards maleness.

if sex is hardcoded in the genetics then what explains growers who raise plants in stressful conditions and end up with all males, when normally they would get females?

if sex is hardcoded and XX = female, then how are people getting males out of S1s? even sometimes getting ALL males when other growers testing the same strain get all females?

at each stage i see people jumping through hoops trying to keep their pet theory alive, not looking at the facts and trying to figure out what makes the most sense and is the simplest way of understanding what's going on. there are too many problems with the "XY system" for that to be the correct explanation of what's going on. at best it's an extreme oversimplification.

that's all i feel like posting on this subject....hope it helps someone.

BTW--i too have scientific articles available to me which back up my observations. those who have hard-ons for such stuff can probably find it as easily as I did. the information is out there....but what's between your ears is more important.