Where? Please enlighten me. (Just for the record, I'm not trying to be right no matter what.)...the paper I posted thinks so too...
Where? Please enlighten me. (Just for the record, I'm not trying to be right no matter what.)...the paper I posted thinks so too...
... but he is not a scientist (mentally yes, but not on a professional level, if you know what I mean). Hence, with all the work he's done, he might not be able to prove that sex determination is Y dependent (if he even wanted to do that in the first place).
Bottom line is, scientific evidence outweighs your opinion and therefore the likelihood of a "useless/functionless" Y chromosome is very high.
You misunderstand me .
What I mean is that he (supposedly, I don't know for sure... obviously) is not working with methods/equipment which for example a university lab has access to. Together with me mentioning that he, from my point of view, has an 'scientific heart' means that his observations are, though rational and objective, just observations and hence likely not enough to prove certain things a research lab could.
Does that explanation make more sense to you?
You misunderstand me .
What I mean is that he (supposedly, I don't know for sure... obviously) is not working with methods/equipment which for example a university lab has access to. Together with me mentioning that he, from my point of view, has an 'scientific heart' means that his observations are, though rational and objective, just observations and hence likely not enough to prove certain things a research lab could.
Does that explanation make more sense to you?
Where? Please enlighten me. (Just for the record, I'm not trying to be right no matter what.)
Sure, nice title .
Seriously, if you'd take the time to do the right thing and look into the cited publications and into those mentioned in these then you'd ended up with the publication by Yamada, I. (1943) The sex-chromosomes of Cannabis sativa L. Rept. Kihara Inst. Biol. Res. 2, 64-68.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find it on the net but other publications indicate that the only thing in there was Yamada's finding of the Y being larger.
If Hoffmann, von Sengbush or any other famous hemp breeder who cared about such things ever investigated whether sex is determined by the X or Y chromosome I do not know. Those publications I read were either the finding of an XY system irrespective of the question at hand and their dispute over sex chromosomes in monoecious hemp.
Furthermore, one cited publication leads to a contradictory publication wherein their table (which is more or less a copy-paste from someone else) says "active Y" whereas in the text they speak or the X-to-autosome ratio. Also, the references for the claim in said table refer to size, not function, of the Y chromosome and hence, genome and microscopic size are the only indications for "Y dominance". All newer investigations regard the X-to-autosome ratio as "the current truth".
The most obvious reason to a non-scientist might be the finding that monoecious hemp has two X chromosomes but still produces male flowers. An active Y would render this ability impossible whereas the ratio assumption does allow such a phenomenon.
There's nothing in that title that indicates an active Y system.Probably a clue in the title? ;
Molecular Cytogenetic Characterization of the Dioecious Cannabis sativa with an XY Chromosome Sex Determination System
I suppose we speak about the same thing but differently .
Yes, there is a clear difference between the two. I think it's without question that monoecious hemp is XX or in other words female derived and that these varieties are human made (other varieties may be different). How the Y exactly influences the whole lot is the point I talk about but best we let that go as it's rather useless for most of us anyway.
If there is a strong and weak X and Y chromosome or at least a more or less dominant or functional allele on one or both of them or if the many observations regarding hermaphroditism, sex reversal, and monoecious populations depend on other mechanisms is way more interesting but to my knowledge still not understood.
For some of you it might be a problem that many of the old publications regarding that subject are in German... fortunately not for me and that's why I could actually read them and not just reviews which are often faulty or incomplete. The works by von Sengbusch, Hoffmann, and others show a very strong correlation between % females in monoecious populations, their "stability" to remain female/monoecious, and remoteness of the location (i.e. isolation from stray hemp pollen -> greenhouse!). I don't remember which of the hemp breeders it was (Bocsa or Bredemann?) who failed to breed/select a monoecious variety because he couldn't find a location isolated enough from all the hemp fields in the former Soviet Union (must have been Bocsa then). This was the main reason why he, Bocsa, invented the unisex varieties for which one only needs a few monoecious (female) pollen donors and not a really stable monoecious line plus a bunch of common females to obtain "feminised" seeds.
Ah, yes, what I wanted to say is that with all the evidence and proof we have (for example the difference between X and Y chromosomes), a real monoecious variety remains monoecious and does NEVER give true male offspring (at least until proven otherwise) unless pollinated by stray pollen.
PS There's that link in my signature to THE HEMP SEED HUB for a little bit more about monoecious hemp.
1 ml per liter of water, sprayed 3 times, first time first day of flowering, second a week later, third a week later. Try not to spray all the leaves as it will kill them, just spray the areas where sexual traits will show.
Here is the male plant at just over 3 weeks flowering. It first started to make male flowers then they turned mostly female, over 90%.
I will see how good the flowers turn out.
-SamS