a 'true' male from S1 seeds?

[Chimera]

The kibosh on this X/autosomal theory is this: These "males" (born of gynoecious selection) are not (when used in breeding) producing typical male/female ratio populations, they are producing vastly gynoecious populations. That, it seems to me is fairly strong evidence against the X/autosomal theories. If they were really male, they'd be producing closer to 50/50 male female ratios, but they're not. -Tom

Just to hammer home the spanking, this^^^^- 'nuff said. If not, cue 'dude looks like a lady', and the reciprocal.

i read this paper <you have to click 'look inside'

>> November 1927, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 65-79

With all due respect, we've come a long way in the 86 years since Hirata published. It's interesting work, and if redone in conjunction with Sakamoto's 1994 findings re: MADC 3/4 and their 2005 papar was taken into account, they might have some interested evidence to share. Without it though, it just missing too much of the picture to hold any water, imho.

-Chimera

 

[mexcurandero420]

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.

It takes 6 to 8 generations to get a fully stabilized monoecious hemp by selection.I would not surprised if he made observations in the wild in Hungary and he has the possibility as a breeder to grow 1000s to do his observations in the field.One of the strains Kompolti Hybrid TC of Iván Bócsa was developed with a monoecious variety.

Keep on growing

 

[frito bandito]

You were quite careful to include the offspring produced in your definition of what a male is, therefore you seem to accept that what a male is, is connected to the genes it contains and passes on, yet still cling to the opinion that if it looks male it is male. Surely you can see the inconsistency there?

no, i don't see an inconsistency at all. to me it is you who is being inconsistent and arbitrary.

my view is this: if it looks like a male, i.e. is 100% staminate always, then it is by definition a male. there is no better definition of whether a plant is male, female, or hermie, than by looking what flowers it actually produces under all conditions. always male flowers, male pollen = male plant. always female flowers, seeds = female plant. the actual genes/chromosome involved in making this determination are completely irrelevant to the observation of what sex a plant is. what matters is the sex organs which are present, and if they are functional.

if i see a person walking down the street, how do i identify that person as male or female? i guess i could take a blood sample of the individual and have it genetically tested to look for a Y chromosome....but wouldn't it be easier just to look for the presence or absence of certain sex organs?

If the determination was made by the X chromosome, yet you accept the Y plays a role, what is that role in your view? You say it changes the expression of the genes, but that is exactly what the active Y theory states. Yet you will not accept the active Y theory. You are slowly coming to the realisation that active Y is the way things work, though wont admit it.

not at all. Y chromosome DOES NOT guarantee maleness. lack of Y chromosome DOES NOT guarantee femaleness. yes the Y changes the expression of X genes. but there is no guarantee that the changes will be such, that it will produce a male plant. if the Y chromosome contains genes which do not fully override the X under the plant's growing conditions, then it could become female. it all comes down to the individual Y chromosome.

You are even prepared to accept that genes have to be what you call "out of whack" for the active Y not to work in the way it normally would.

not in the least. i put that phrase there, in quotes, for YOUR benefit....so that you can relate to and understand what i'm saying based on YOUR perspective...which I do not agree with. you call those genes "out of whack", and you talk about "normal", when those words mean nothing to me at all. the plant is what the plant is. to me there is absolutely nothing at all "out of whack" about a female cannabis plant with XY chromosome, or any other weird combination. it may not be the "norm", i.e. it may not fit our preconceived ideas about what the plant "normally" is, but it's natural nonetheless for XY plants to sometimes become female or XX's to sometimes become male. it happens. the vanilla XX/XY system, does not and cannot explain why this occurs.

The same situation I described earlier that you took such exception to. I don't think you actually argue against what I say, its merely the value judgment that I made on these individuals that you object to. In that case, you would be in Tom's camp rather than mine, if you just accept what Tom and I both accept to be the mechanism at work. Which I suspect you actually now do but are reluctant to say outright.

you couldn't be more wrong bro. i absolutely couldn't give a shit less whose "camp" i'm in or whose buddy list i'm on. no offense Tom, you are a good breeder IMO but i am not swinging from yours or anyone else's nuts. and i dont have a problem with you GMT...i just think you're wrong. i'm participating in this discussion simply for entertainment value, and with the hope someone somewhere may benefit from the cross talk. there is no need for me to "prove" i'm right. if i'm right then it will show in my breeding work.

here's my question to the thread:

is it not commonly accepted, and frequently observed, that the sex of a given cannabis plant is determined at least partially by the environment it grew up in? many people have had the experience of sexing some plants and finding that in some conditions they get all females, or all males, or various ratios in between, whereas another grower could get something completely different from the same seeds. surely everyone will agree that this happens, considering how often it has been observed.

the only way to explain this is if the sex is not fixed from "birth." if sex were truly fixed and unalterable from birth, i.e. by the Y chromosome "guaranteeing" maleness by its mere presence, then you would not expect to see any difference in sex ratios between different environments. the XYs would all be males and the XXs would be females and i dont have a clue how you would explain the various types of hermies in this theory. in mine it's simple: each plant starts off with no sex chosen. a choice is made early in its life, before it reaches sexual maturity. as the plant is exposed to and reacts to its environment, different genes are activated or suppressed and various levels of "messenger" chemicals are built up or destroyed in the plant cells or phloem. then at some point a "switch" is flipped and the plant's sex is determined for life. (nanners can appear and female flowers can appear on a male plant but i think this "hermie"ism may be controlled by a separate mechanism, which is active during times of stress.)

regardless of which sex is chosen, the genotype remain the same; the offspring's likelihood of becoming male/female when they are sexed is determined by the parent's genotype, not its phenotype.

you might have had a bunch of seeds that would normally give an 80/20 f/m ratio for instance, but try germinating and sexing them in a hot, poorly ventilated, stressful environment, and odds are you will get more males, right? this has been documented a thousand times on here. the genotype is unaltered; it's how that genotype is being expressed, i.e. the phenotype of each plant, that are different. but as we know, it's the genotype that is actually passed down to offspring, not the phenotype. the offspring will have the same genetic chances of becoming male/female that the parents had......so yes, it is very possible to get a male plant, which "should" have been a female based on the "XX" theory, but which actually became male for whatever reason. in its offspring you gets lots of females. it's an XX male.

see: charlie garcia's peyote purple strain. it's a "feminized" strain that produces almost all females. some males pop up on occasion. i bet if you sequenced those plants, you wouldn't find a single Y chromosome anywhere. they are XX males.

 

[SoooHaggard]

I am digging this banter!

If you guy's don't mind me jumping in real quick, it's clear you both know a large amount when it comes to the breeding of cannabis. Just wondering if you two/three had some books you would suggest reading that doesn't have "Dank Dumb" in the title.

I have been lurking you guys for awhile so hopefully you throw the book @ me, literally.

 

[GMT]

frito in answer to your 2 Qs, no and no.

Sooo start here http://rapidog.com/handbook-of-plant-science-rapidshare.html

 

[Sky Mask Blues]

Peace greetings all.

GMT and Frito,
You guys are something else. I mean that in the most endearing and complementary way possible. After thoroughly digesting what the two of you have posted i have come to a few conclusions:
1) There is a lack of commonly accepted definitions here.
2) one is burning from the left to the center and the other is burning from the right to the center. it read like you guys were saying similar things but using different words in articulating what you mean.

it seems that Frito cannot accept the definition GMT provides for a "male", and GMT cannot accept Fritos definition of a "male". IMO this seems to be the pivotal thing that is preventing acceptance of either one's presentation of information. but like I said its just my opinion.

reading this thread has challenged me to reconsider my conception of what a male is.
something I would like to have clarified if anyone would be so kind: environmental stress causing male expression?
hard to validate, but I can see how this would be evolutionarily advantageous. females typically demand more nutes and water than males correct? so if the xx plant expresses male flowers it saves its energy while producing pollen, that in my head theory, would result in progeny with greater frequency of females, and of those female they would exhibit a marked increase in drought tolerance. Am I making any sense? Took a fatty dab of some Blueberry bho budder, heads all crooked.

as it has been repeated by both Frito and GMT, and others, that the expression of male flowers is not totally and absolutely limited to XY, correct?

so that mean an XY is a manly male, producing dioecious progeny with its pollen
and an XX that expresses male flowers is a Lady man that produces fuck tons of sexy daughters, right?
If this is incorrect please let me know, I am here to learn and improve!

If I have understood things correctly, GMT is defining the male as an XY, that produces XY pollen. Correct?
and in the context of selfing, in the progeny there can be an XX that exclusively produces male flowers, looks male, but produces gynodioecious progeny. still on the right page here?

Frito's definition is that if it has male flowers it a male, do I have that right frito?

the information about an XX expressing exclusively male reproductive parts makes a lot of sense. during my 12 years of crossing and growing i have had a few males that had pollen that produced seed that resulted in significantly more females than males, I always was curious what the underlying factor was, now light has been shed on a possible explanation. My Lifesaver male produced about 80% female stock and about 20% hermaphrodites. Worth sorting out though!!! Sweet almost kushy acrid musk undertones in a delectable lemon pledge dominate yum yum?

I thank you all and look forward to more enlightening discussions like this.

I am a tweenager in terms of how long I have been dealing exclusively with this majestic plant.

but im still growing at growing aren't we all.

 

[stickshift]

Wow still people cannot understand sexual determination and sexual expression. Frito flip flops more than a woman (at least mine)...

The Y does guarantee it as a male, no getting away from that... sexual expression is effected by meiotic non-homologous recombination/translocation as well as hormonal signaling.

 

[Sky Mask Blues]

Stickshift: "Wow still people cannot understand sexual determination and sexual expression."

are you referring to muah?

 

[stickshift]

Stickshift: "Wow still people cannot understand sexual determination and sexual expression."

are you referring to muah?

It was more at gingerale who seems to be a masochist. but hell if the cap fits and one needs to ask! j/k

 

[Coba]

Its like a cell in the toe contains the dna for making a heart, but the toe doesn't have a heart in it.

this sentence is a gem.

 

[Mate Dave]

I can honestly say that just having spent a few years studying that not many of you have a grasp of the basics. I mean no offence but you cannot comprehend to understand something without learning the basics.

Therefore I cannot continue being any help because you don't know enough to converse with without explaining the correct terminology and procedures.

Try learning to grow properly before jumping in at the deep end making it difficult for people to learn because of all the dribble, and mis-information. It is simple when you know what's happening. Try to learn.

I am after all just laughing at some of the bollocks many of you come out with. I am just only getting started, many of you need to re-learn what you have either been misguided on, or just thought you knew better.

 

[GMT]

SMB, I'd always separate what can technically be described as envirinment into 2 categories. Those that would exist in a natural environment if it were growing in the wild, and those that are introduced by man in order to manipulate the response.

"of those female they would exhibit a marked increase in drought tolerance."
You touch on an area that could either be thought of as epigenetic memory or survival of the fittest, depending on which camp you are pitching your tent in. And I'm not sure which you are aiming for.

"the expression of male flowers is not totally and absolutely limited to XY, correct?"
correct in the strictest sense.

"an XY is a manly male, producing dioecious progeny with its pollen"
correct hopefully if all is well, incorrect sometimes depending on the genes and health of those genes passed on.

"an XX that expresses male flowers is a Lady man that produces fuck tons of sexy daughters, right?"
hmmm, well, depends. Was what caused that to happen natural or man's manipulation? And do you find chicks with dicks sexy?

" GMT is defining the male as an XY, that produces XY pollen. Correct?"
yep

"in the context of selfing, in the progeny there can be an XX that exclusively produces male flowers,"
not just in selfing, can happen anytime, but someting (whatever your view) isn't right there.

 

[FOE20]

Im fooish for popin in here but its been interesting...
and I do realize my views were from another angle all together..
Ive been taught a lil more on the sts/cs concept and ya I was never keen to it to begin with...but I was also hoping the OP was goin for a more standard way of breeding and just glad the idea in general was questioned...
I feel whats being seen as a Male s1 is a stressed Fem..showing Boy parts...thnx you guys..its been a thick read...and i'll def not be messin with it myself...

Really tho....just do it...if you guys really want to know..screw the papers...screw the convo...
Applied Science..do it.........
do it.....
dooo................it...
do .....do .....do it......and lets put a end to it all...and think about it...You could be the man to prove it once n for all...
I dbl dare ya, and doc'ument it to...
keep rollin
FOE20

 

[Galactic]

Re: a 'true' male from S1 seeds?

Those who can do, do. Those who cannot do, teach.

 

[FOE20]

ya know some poor guy is still sittin there with a Shemale in his hands....I bet when he got those s1's he wasn't thinkin Males...
now someone has a s1 male and guess what...its heading right for you soon enough...
but those who didnt wana do, did...heh...so now what?....
FOE20

 

[igrowone]

ya know some poor guy is still sittin there with a Shemale in his hands....I bet when he got those s1's he wasn't thinkin Males...
now someone has a s1 male and guess what...its heading right for you soon enough...
but those who didnt wana do, did...heh...so now what?....
FOE20

you got that straight, wasn't planning on a male, or was thinking a male chances were very small
no real rationale other than than the 'tribal knowledge' was that selfed seeds seldom produced males
the poor, sad male that started the thread wasn't really stressed
at least other plants came through similar grow conditions just fine
so i've grown a little more informed, i'll freeze dry some pollen eventually, a paintbrush's worth of seeds won't harm much

 

[xmobotx]

With all due respect, we've come a long way in the 86 years since Hirata published. It's interesting work, and if redone in conjunction with Sakamoto's 1994 findings re: MADC 3/4 and their 2005 papar was taken into account, they might have some interested evidence to share. Without it though, it just missing too much of the picture to hold any water, imho.

-Chimera

yes, i agree completely. mainly i offered that citation because: it's specific to cannabis, and the data set (while small) confirms what i and others have been saying in this thread

basically; a feminised seed is produced when contributing 'parents' are both female

FTMP circumstances being what they have been in recent history {and concurrent w/ alarming innovation and discovery in the rest of the scientific world} we as breeders/pollen chuckers/growers have to rely on observation to make the determination that both plants were in fact female {chromosome level}

variations which may seem to disprove the theory are likely caused by inaccurate observation at the parental level OIW; the progeny prove the parent stock to be tainted by 'y' chromosome

i would never argue that autosomal variation is impossible, but rather very uncommon

FTMP it is not the explanation here specifically and it usually will not be {IF it ever is}

not producing males from feminised seed is an atypical 1st obstacle. likely of far greater concern to the practical breeder is the possibility of producing monoecious progeny ~we want feminised seed not hermaphrodised!

 

[GMT]

sorry, prob being dumb here but FTMP?

 

[PWF]

i have a male that was stressed, showed pistils and pollinated himself. the 3-4 seeds are almost finished. ill try and post a picture. i have seen alot of males that bloom out fine but turn up pistils in the clones. mainly in my butterscotch plants and crosses. a hermi isa hermie tho and i think what we are dealing with is a strong reproduction trigger. whether male or female at the start, if it changes sex it wasnt either to begin, barring of course chemical treatment.
i WILL be opening those "male-s1".
peace,
pwf

 

[Coba]

sorry, prob being dumb here but FTMP?

FTMP For the Most Part

FTMP Fast Track Management Program

FTMP Fault-Tolerant Multi-Processor

FTMP Funky Town Monkey Pimps

probably one of these GMT ^^