User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  8
Likes Likes:  8
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 25 to 31 of 31

Thread: Patented Sarracenia; What does this mean for growers?

  1. #25
    theplantman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    973
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cruzzfish View Post
    Yeah, but you can't distribute clones of that one. Any children that one has can be distributed.


    And Whimgrinder, you'd only have crippling inbreeding issues in animals. Plants are much, much more capable of handling that, and the few that are notably effected wouldn't be cloned from. All you need is just one that looks like the parent. In other plant communities, selfing them is actually a requirement for eight generations in order to say you have new strain.
    Selfed plants will always create more recessive, deleterious alleles than crossed plants. The alleles vary in how they affect fitness and vital plant functions--cell division/differentiation, chlorophyll production, hormones, immune response, etc. There are certain plants that do tolerate selfing more than others (Mimulus, Drosera, etc.), but for most of the plant kingdom sexual reproduction is in the best interest of the plants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Benurmanii View Post
    If plants had immune systems, our lives as hobbyists would be so much easier! Also, this is off-topic from the point of the thread, but I was unsure if inbreeding affects Nepenthes detrimentally. Why would it not cause problems for them, but could still cause problems for other plants (man, plant genetics seems so much more complex than animal genetics).

    Edit: ignore the part I said about Nepenthes inbreeding, I misread "aren't even capable of it".
    I have to strongly disagree. Plants abso-freaking-lutely have immune responses to a wide range of pests, diseases, and mechanical damage. This ranges the gamut from physiological defenses (spines, trichomes) to chemical defenses (nicotine, caffeine, menthol, allelopathy, resins, latex etc.). Plants even use volatile gases to communicate from leaf-to-leaf and plant-to-plant. In the case of idioblasts, some plants have cells whose sole role is to explode suicidally and release poisons. Some case studies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrrSAc-vjG4. Also, the very well-pieced-together process of how trees defend from fungal attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...decay_in_trees

    Quote Originally Posted by Benurmanii View Post
    I meant more along the lines of our complex immune systems. It would be wonderful if they could fight off fungus infections like we fight off the flu!

    Also, I had not known that neps could change their sex like that, very interesting!
    All plants are constantly in battle with the outside world, including microbes, nematodes, viruses, insects, and herbivores. This is why so many interesting and useful plant-derived chemicals have evolved. This includes carnivorous plants. In fact, the trichomes of Drosera were derived, evolutionarily, from trichomes that may have originally had a protective rather than carnivorous function for the plant.

    One of the most important things that I have learned over the years is to understand the cultural reasons why pests and diseases succeed. Often, problems can be traced to factors like nutrition, pH, soil aeration, and other factors which limit the ability of the plant to fight problems. The better I can grasp why I'm getting problems, the fewer pesticides I use. It's just often complicated to get it right, and there's a lot of room for error and making choices which don't get to the root of the problem.

  2. #26

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    207
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Whimgrinder View Post
    I wasn't asking why, I was just offering my documentation as proof that what was rumored to be true was in fact possible. The female vogelii has been pollinated by the male several months ago and I've inspected the contents of one pod: it appears there will be approximately 20% of the seeds with embryos.
    However, we cannot state that this is a selfing because I have no proof that these two plants are the same clone. I'm not even sure they are both BE clones - though I strongly suspect they both are. But BE vogelii are a swarm of many individuals, so the odds are these two plants are distinct, but related.
    I wasn't saying yours were selfed. Just that if you had a Nepenthes, cloned it, and either it or the clone changed sex and you bred both of them, then that would be selfing. I have three Ventricosa that came from the same plant, so when they flower I'll see if any of them are different.

  3. #27
    Whimgrinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3,875
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cruzzfish View Post
    I wasn't saying yours were selfed. Just that if you had a Nepenthes, cloned it, and either it or the clone changed sex and you bred both of them, then that would be selfing. I have three Ventricosa that came from the same plant, so when they flower I'll see if any of them are different.
    I realize that - I simply wanted to make it abundantly clear to all who read this that i was not implying there was a selfing in progress. People have a way of jumping to conclusions and I want to avoid that as much as possible.

  4. #28

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    207
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Whimgrinder View Post
    I realize that - I simply wanted to make it abundantly clear to all who read this that i was not implying there was a selfing in progress. People have a way of jumping to conclusions and I want to avoid that as much as possible.
    Ok, just making sure.

  5. #29
    hcarlton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Greeley, CO, USA
    Posts
    3,573
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I may have an instance of a Nepenthes that has selfed; the one odd-pod that formed on my (inermis x singalana) x mira appears to have successfully developing seeds (as one side of the pod is missing and seeds are visible as they grow) and it was the only thing with pollen being produced at the time, so we might get a glimpse of the results...
    And yes, plants can fall as quickly to inbreeding as animals can, it's just that most lines we work with are heavily heterozygous so it takes a lot to concentrate bad genes to the same extent we see in many animals, or like in the case of Aldrovanda homozygosity is so nearly complete and devoid of aberrant genes that selfing vs. outcrossing has the same result...
    Also concerning the discussion of cultivars and patents: for the most part, cultivar designation is based on appearance, with some background in parentage/genome. Most cultivar descriptions say that vegetative propagation is necessary for production usually because offspring almost never look exactly the same as the cultivar parent. If in the off chance though an offspring from, say, selfing does show the same appearance, or like in the case of 'Hurricane Creek White' the proper traits, it can be considered the same cultivar. I think Dionaea might be a little different because there are a hundred cultivars that basically look the same, but....
    Everything has a reason, whether big or small. Never underestimate the power of what is or is not.
    There is far more to everything than meets the eye.
    Growlist

  6. #30
    Whimgrinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3,875
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hcarlton View Post
    Also concerning the discussion of cultivars and patents: for the most part, cultivar designation is based on appearance, with some background in parentage/genome. Most cultivar descriptions say that vegetative propagation is necessary for production usually because offspring almost never look exactly the same as the cultivar parent. If in the off chance though an offspring from, say, selfing does show the same appearance, or like in the case of 'Hurricane Creek White' the proper traits, it can be considered the same cultivar. I think Dionaea might be a little different because there are a hundred cultivars that basically look the same, but....
    Which illustrates the flaw in the industry definition of a "cultivar"; as long as it looks like "x" then nurseries are free to distribute it as "x", but the consumer has no assurance that they are receiving a specific individual. While that can be advantageous for the merchant, its a terrible thing for the consumer.

  7. #31
    Whimgrinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3,875
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Let me give you an example to illustrate why I think the current industry definition of "cultivar" is a poor concept.
    By definition, any plant whose morphology fits the description of the cultivar can be distributed under that name. Imagine if you discovered that (and this is a purely manufactured example, so don't panic) you purchased a plant of S. 'Leah Wilkerson' only to find that there were seven genetically distinct plants in commerce being distributed as 'Leah Wilkerson'! Now imagine how you'd feel if you discovered this after having acquired it for hybridizing purposes, and you also discover only one of those clones has worthwhile breeding abilities, and the others are only mediocre breeders. What if you'd had the plant for years and already used it in hybridizing and were frustrated by the fact that other people you knew were making amazing treasures from their plant while all you got was junk! Well guess what? You didn't get the same plant they got!! As long as the plants look right for the cultivar description, they don't even have to have the same pedigree!

    As I say, this is a fictional account - I think it's safe to assume there is only one individual being distributed under the 'Leah Wilkerson' clonal designation - but this is a scenario that has actually played out in ornamental horticulture, with other genera. Allowing multiple clones to meet the requirements for the term "cultivar" is a terrible idea for the consumer. But it wasn't meant to benefit you, it was designed to benefit the industry that propagates and distributes the plants.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •