I have some of the highly sought after S. 'Leah Wilkerson' seeds available. I would like to trade for any Sarracenia that is not on my growlist or I would like to have a few more D. Rotundifolia. Click on the www button below to see my growlist. I am going to trade them in lots of 25 seeds and have 4-6 lots available. Seeds were collected on 9/19/2006. Please pm me if interested and we will work something out.
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
S. 'Leah Wilkerson' seeds available for trade
- Thread starter bucky78
- Start date
seedjar
Let's positive thinking!
droseraguy
Illinois
Perhaps I am wrong but I wouldn't go calling them S. Leah Wilkerson. You will most likely get a whole bunch of variable looking plants.. none of which look exactly like S. Leah Wilkerson OR have the incredible size and vigorous growth the original S. Leah Wilkerson exhibits.
Maybe Brook's can help clarify as I am sure there are number of people now or soon to be growing seedlings from selfed S. Leah Wilkerson.
Maybe Brook's can help clarify as I am sure there are number of people now or soon to be growing seedlings from selfed S. Leah Wilkerson.
glider14
Always a newbie
seedjar
Let's positive thinking!
Even a Punnett square is a vast oversimplification: it's highly unlikely that there's a single gene for Leah-Wilkerson-like features, and even more unlikely that such a gene has only two alleles. In a single selfing, there at least tens of thousands of possibilities among the relevant genes.
~Joe
~Joe
glider14
Always a newbie
glider14
Always a newbie
JB_OrchidGuy
Cardiac Nurse
That is why I like the way they do cultivars with orchids. If it is not that exact plant or a clone of that plant you cannot call it that cultivar. I agree with the others that if you take Leah and cross it with Leah the children are going to come our different. Some may exibit some or a couple of leah's trates, but they will not be Leah. Even with the way culitvars are done in CPs you couldn't call all the seeds produced Leah wilkerson because you do not knwo if all of them exibit the trates of the orriginal desciption. You would have to grow them up and the compair and the ones that exibit her trate could be called that, but not the others. Now you can advertise them as S. 'Leah Wilkerson' x self seeds, but you cannot accurately describe them as 'Leah Wilkerson' seeds. It could be constituted as fraud since you are selling them on Ebay if someone wanted to push the issue. Just a warning. Especialy if somone buys the seeds for a pretty penny then grows them up and none of the offspring exibit the trates described for 'leah wilkerson' you mentioned.
seedjar
Let's positive thinking!
The thing about Punnett squares is that when you try to deal with more than one gene, you instantly get tables that can't be visualized (at least by most people.) A two-gene Punnett square is a hypercube, a uniformly-bounded four-dimensional figure. Every additional gene requires the addition of two new dimensions to the table, so by the time you reach four or five genes you're beyond the visualization capacity of even the most highly talented savants. You can condense the information into a two-dimensional chart, but it quickly becomes illegible or unmanageable. When you add in the fact that most genes are more than simply dominant or recessive, Punnett squares become quite impractical, if not more or less useless.[b said:
~Joe
Having dine a breif stint in a C. elegans lab I have to disagree with you somewhat. 3, 4 and 5 gene Punnett squares are often utilized by worm geneticists because the joy of a hermaphroditic model is that you can pretty much figure out the gene frequency of the offspring. So if you have a GFP, left bend, twitching, roller and you know that she is heterozygous for all traits then you can work out the offspring frequency. And it really is not that complex... I did it in my head on more than one occasion and I am nowhere near savant level intelligence[b said:
Now as for the seeds themselves, Tony is correct to say that you can not call them 'Leah Wilkerson' they should be described as 'Leah Wilkerson' F2 or better yet complex x moorei.
seedjar
Let's positive thinking!
Well, I'm saying it's difficult to think about it with a one-to-one correspondance between possible parent's genes and dimensions on the table, the way a single-gene square does. When I did multi-gene Punnett squares, we wrote them as squares within squares within squares. It's possible to write them this way, but at four genes with two possible alleles you have 64 cells in your table, and it's not nearly as handy and lucid as the single-layer squares. To calculate and list the possibilities in your head isn't terribly difficult, but representing it in an elegant figure like a single-gene Punnett square is another matter. When I speak of savants, I'm referring to people who can imagine charts in six, eight or more dimensions; enumerating the possible combinations is a much simpler matter.
~Joe
~Joe
