a 'true' male from S1 seeds?

[xmobotx]

no doubt ~even in our controlled climates

and that is also where we run in to so many divergent opinions {you know from our 'citations' from 2nd and 3rd party anecdotal 'data' presenters}

enter the "Y did mah plant hermY" thread where the 1st few responses are all different: didja have light leaks? temp/humid stress?, water cycle issue?

maybe the plant was just going to herm anyway and maybe any {or all} those factors were the culprit ~or an un-accounted for stressor?

 

[igrowone]

so much information, but i do love reading it, even though it goes well beyond my needs for pollen chucking
i do find the assertion that a population of intersexed trait plants with no 'pure' males will eventually produce males after some number of generations?
not sure if there is complete agreement on this, but if true to my naive point of view is the Y chromosome is reassembled in those populations?
which sounds strange/impossible, unless the Y is a distributed affair all over the plant's genetics

 

[Tom Hill]

It is commonly accepted theory that dioecy evolved from hermaphroditism with the usual midpoints (subdioecious etc) along the way. Genetic mutation accounts for the first XY (strange perhaps, certainly far more rare than what we are discussing in this thread), then because evolution favors dioecy, it takes over, so goes the common/current theory in plant species imu. -T

 

[igrowone]

thank you Tom, that is one more vegetable for the stew so to speak
so complex are our green plants, many have much more complex genetics then we human lords of the planet, or so i think i recall

 

[GMT]

yes you can re-evolve a Y, if you have a spare few million years to throw at it. Ratchet theory is the most feasible explanation of the evolution of the Y chromosome.

 

[igrowone]

yes you can re-evolve a Y, if you have a spare few million years to throw at it. Ratchet theory is the most feasible explanation of the evolution of the Y chromosome.

that's likely beyond my time horizon, still interesting though

 

[stickshift]

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

It is based on;

Potlog, A.S., Velican, V., 1972. Tratat de ameliorare a plantelor, Ed. Acad. Bucure şti.

Who stated Dioecy is dominant over monoecy

Because of intensive melioration, of pronounced segrega
tion of the characters of intersexuate forms and
because of the possibility to return to the initial dioecious type (the dioecy is dominant over monoecy -
Potlog and Velican, 1972) the ways to realize inters
exuate hemp varieties with traits of economic
importance and to perpetuate them in culture are limited.
In practice, difficulties exist in the generalization
in culture of monoecious cultivars or
of those with simultaneous maturity
, because of the impossibility to
maintain their genetic purity. They manifest a strong
segregation in descendance, and between these forms
always appear true male plants whic
h, by pollination of intersexuate fo
rms, determine the issue of a higher
number of dioecious plants in desce
ndance. The dioecious trait being domin
ant, the return to the dioecious
type is rapid.

http://www.medicinalgenomics.com/wp...12/Genome_Size_2007_Anale_GBM_VIII_f2_l07.pdf

 

[Mate Dave]

That ^^ paper is totally irreverent to a discussion on cultivars made from other wild seed types in 1-1 breeding projects, it bares relevance only to that particular strain documented, and its predominance of dioecious or (Male) plants, was this field cultivated by any chance? It had to be to determine the outcomes, catch up guys!

 

[xmobotx]

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.

bolded is the problematic part

i have no problem w/ figuring dioecious as a dominant trait though ~makes more sense that way. Then; the degree of propensity to express the herm trait would need to be determined

 

[stickshift]

bolded is the problematic part

i have no problem w/ figuring dioecious as a dominant trait though ~makes more sense that way. Then; the degree of propensity to express the herm trait would need to be determined

Why? if it is left in a field without selection it will at some point get a XY dioecious male and then it's fucked. To maintain the monoecious types you'd have to remove the 5 to 10 odd per cent that show separate flowers etc.. esp the males as I think someone stated earlier. I think I remember there was a marker found by Mandolino called OPA8 (??) (its prob in the link to the hemp sexual determination etc) they stated that this marker was only present in dioecious males (both carpellate and staminate)...

this is the abstract I just found on the net..

A 400-bp RAPD marker generated by a primer of random decamer sequence has been found associated with the male sex phenotype in 14 dioecious cultivars and accessions of hemp (Cannabis sativa L.). The primer OPA8 generates a set of bands, most of which polymorphic among all the individual plants tested, and 1 of which, named OPA8400, present in all male plants and absent in female plants. A screening of 167 plants belonging to different genotypes for the association of the OPA8400 marker with the sex phenotype revealed that only in 3 cases was the 400-bp band was present in plants phenotypically female; on the contrary, in male plants the band was never missing, while in monoecious plants it was never present. Despite this sex-specific association, the sequences corresponding to OPA8400 were present in both staminate and carpellate plants, as revealed by Southern blotting and hybridization with the cloned RAPD band. The RAPD marker was sequenced, and specific primers were constructed. These primers generated, on the same genotypes used for RAPD analysis, a SCAR marker 390 bp in length and male-specific. This SCAR is suitable for a precise, early and rapid identification of male plants during breeding programs of dioecious and monoecious hemp.

 

[Mate Dave]

What the fuck is this ^^ Toilet paper?? Can somebody please explain the relevance to these papers and inform me on the facts behind the relevance. It is easy to find a male without tests, these would make the whole process LONG and expensive!

It merely confirms the presence of 'King Queen' plants 'cladautoicous' in a segregating population.

A phenotypical female not of gynocious decent, which has the male kayrotype fits with the Mendelian rule, so when doing the cubing tables the absolute dioecy trait is coming from the male gametophyte, to create a dioecious sporophyte.

Like we were saying before the male Karyotype XY - ie: TfTm, is the fixer of the latent heterocious disorder, brought on via environmental stress to ensure survival.

If this wasn't encoded then in the wild we could kill all 'male karyotypes' and without the heterocious tendencies there would never be any more seed to maintain diversity.

I'm getting better than these old papers.

 

[xmobotx]

so; essentially, if a 'strain' EVER herms; it has ancestral lineage to commercial hemp/descends from engineered stock?

since {according to that data} NO cannabis would ever herm if man didn't introduce the plants to monoeciousness?

AND; cannabis would have to be steadily moving towards dioecious exclusively unless some one continued to re-inforce the introduction of hermaphroditism~

i m not going to say that is BS/wrong but it doesn't conform to my observation. Unfortunately; i dont have extensive knowledge of the ancient hemp industry. So, i cant authoritatively refute that.

BUT; no ~i dont believe it

 

[Mate Dave]

We should be telling people that in a natural environment Cannabis sativa will display a sub-dioecious genotype unless altered by the hand of man.

Linnaeus was the man who first documented the dioecious state, we should be looking in his journals for the reasons behind his discovery. Was it upon the observations of a population that he instantly witnessed segregation or did he cultivate the plants for a season to obtain the dioecious state. (What was he looking at and where when?)

We must remember that although modern science had disproved many things regarding the genetic make up of chromosomes, The theory behind mendalin's work is sound. No computers are ever needed. Also the terminology that the botanists of that day were using far proceeds anything that the common man today can understand logically, the term monoecious is implied in a different manner to the general term we use it for describing a 'herm'.

Monoecious in this meaning is a population derived by scientific - self breeding a pure xx individual to produce only xx individuals, genetically not theoretically, one of these individuals being the monoecious plant or genotype, not female but monoeciously female, not a wild 'herm' or natural female.

The paper shows that within a segregating population of dioecious and monoecious individuals; better known as sub-dioecious that the marker is defined in the dioecious populations specific karyotype.

The problem with this above paper is the need for the botanical glossary for help translating the definitions behind the meanings of the words.

 

[stickshift]

I see you actually managed to read the paper after calling it toilet paper etc... well done you and your many ids! heaven forbid when discussing botany we use botanical terms.

(Cannaboy, where's Doc Leaf at? in your head?... who else is in there?..did you hand allard to yourself? you know wtf i'm on about)

 

[xmobotx]

yeah mate dave nice to see a cognizant post

i m coming around a little myself and beginning to understand some of the things you said above stickshift

fascinating how one {me} can be stuck w/ an idea which actually isnt too divergent from the facts and a little fleshing out manages to conform it to experience/observation even though it might not be the initial impression one gets

to be clear i am referencing my post #152 above

i was wrong

 

[Mate Dave]

'Sativa' botanically means (Cultivated variety), therefore Cannabis sativa is a cultivated variety period!

Linneaus wasn't observing a wild population, it was being cropped!

There are 3 outcomes from this situation which all pertain to cannabis being dioecious but displaying Sub-dioecious state naturally.

The plants were obtained from natural M/F 1-1 full sib matings from wild populations displaying no morphagensis, the progeny resulted in either full dioecuous or sub-dioecious populations.

The wild population was allowed to open pollinate and seed lots were grown from a selected idealistic female population, thus resulting in sub-dioecious state, with no exceptions.

The 'Cannabis sativa' discribed was a heavily cultivated variety, all possible outcomes were observed from all manner of crossings, pertaining to a dioecious state by the hand of man!

 

[stickshift]

'Sativa' botanically means (Cultivated variety), therefore Cannabis sativa is a cultivated variety period!

Linneaus wasn't observing a wild population, it was being cropped!

There are 3 outcomes from this situation which all pertain to cannabis being dioecious but displaying Sub-dioecious state naturally.

The plants were obtained from natural M/F 1-1 full sib matings from wild populations displaying no morphagensis, the progeny resulted in either full dioecuous or sub-dioecious populations.

The wild population was allowed to open pollinate and seed lots were grown from a selected idealistic female population, thus resulting in sub-dioecious state, with no exceptions.

The 'Cannabis sativa' discribed was a heavily cultivated variety, all possible outcomes were observed from all manner of crossings, pertaining to a dioecious state by the hand of man!

Pretty sure he based his classification on a handful of plants from Holland and Sweden. And yes they would of been cultivated if that's your point? He also based most of his description on Cannabis from work done by Rabelais(though it seems he got the sexes wrong (1545)), he also applied the name Cannabis saliva L across the board (instead of just to the specimens he had).
He based all his work on what he saw and heard across Europe and thus as their stock was likely from India (narrow leaf) he assumed Canna started life in India (though Lamarck termed indica on broadleafs he found in India). These Europeans used to base the male plant as the female, they were selecting for fibre not to get high etc.
Linneaus was correct to get the gender of the plants correct, so provided a sound starting point.
Though if you look at what Rabelais wrote he may well of been looking at intersexuals, and not purely male and female plants.
(He actually grew on his land in France, not sure that Linneaus grew any to a great extent).

And as in diverse plants and trees there are two sexes, male and female, which is perceptible in laurels, palms, cypresses, oaks, holmes [i.e. holmoaks], the daffodil [i.e. asphodel], mandrake, fern, the agaric [i.e. mushroom], birthwort, turpentine, pennyroyal, peony, rose of the mount and many other such like, even so in this herb there is a male which beareth no flower at all, yet it is very copious of and abundant in seed. There is likewise in it a female, which hath great store and plenty of whitish flowers, serviceable to little or no purposes, nor doth it carry in it seed of any worth at all, at least comparable to that of the male. It hath also a larger leaf and much softer than that of the male, nor doth it altogether grow to so great a height.

 

[xmobotx]

that actually kinda clears things up a little

 

[igrowone]

one last update to the story of the male, or whatever it was
it was left by a window for lighting, it had worked for other males i've had
the male blooms refused to yiled pollen, they would darken then rot away
it was producing new growth, but weren't the best growing conditions
so as i see it, this was one wierd plant, and it did stay pistil free right to the end

 

[dc2569]

Bice