|
|
Post by rainforestguy on Jan 12, 2008 23:32:32 GMT 8
I have always struggled with tc clones of reinwardtiana. I have had seed sent to me not that long ago of a red reinwardtiana and from the seedlings that have developed, this is a very easy to grow species. The plant produces close internodes making multiple pitchers at once. Lately the pitchers have started to take on serious red colors. The eye spots are evident and pitchers are of a good size. This will be an easy to grow species, eventually topping the ranks of many alata species for their weediness growth habits (just like how you would see them in habitat photos!  M |
|
|
|
Post by rainforestguy on Jan 18, 2008 5:30:25 GMT 8
I would be interested in seeing other reinwardtianas whether seed grown or tc.
I have a weak spindly tc plant from MT growing ever so slowly.
Anyone has a hefty plant of this in tc form?
M
|
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Jan 18, 2008 5:35:00 GMT 8
Great looking plant!
Unfortunately, I have no reinwardtianas. I've been trying to get it for about a year, but something always gets in the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by rainforestguy on Jan 22, 2008 4:12:52 GMT 8
This seed grown conforms to the type for reinwardtianas. And while the eye-spots are a feature, it does not always denote that it is a pure reinwardtiana.
While hybridizing occurs naturally its odd that species such as platychila is widely accepted that it has traits close to N. fusca (introgression) and breeding back to "pure" platychila would produce "true" platychila. Does that make any sense?
So if we bred N. clipeata x reinwardtiana back to clipeata, will that mean that we sort of have "pure" clipeata? Or how about breeding back to N. clipeata over many generations, will this produce "pure" clipeatas?
M
|
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Jan 22, 2008 11:29:59 GMT 8
Difficult to say definitively, but I wouldn't mind some sort of standard being established. If you had clip x clip x eymae x clip x clip, as the saying goes "if it walks like a duck...."
Of course, you could never "make" "pure" species once they've been crossed with something, since the genes from the other species will forever be in the genome. However, functionally, when the plant behaves and looks like it "should", I think we can safely say that it is the species, instead of having to record some nonsense complex hybrid crap. Most "species" in people's collections (and in the wild for that matter) contain genetic information from other species. Not at all surprising in a genus where at least some of the species have origin as hybrids.
|
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jan 22, 2008 11:36:53 GMT 8
This seed grown conforms to the type for reinwardtianas. And while the eye-spots are a feature, it does not always denote that it is a pure reinwardtiana. While hybridizing occurs naturally its odd that species such as platychila is widely accepted that it has traits close to N. fusca (introgression) and breeding back to "pure" platychila would produce "true" platychila. Does that make any sense? So if we bred N. clipeata x reinwardtiana back to clipeata, will that mean that we sort of have "pure" clipeata? Or how about breeding back to N. clipeata over many generations, will this produce "pure" clipeatas? M Hi Michael: if clipeata populations are geographically sharing a habitat with the presumptive reinwardtianas, yes these will have to be called pure clipeatas at some stage. This is nature's way of keeping plant populations healthy as inbreeding, as shown in other genera and kingdoms can cause malformities and defects which may lead to their extinction. Now that if you are going to cross a rajah with a sumatrana several times over several F populations, rajah X sumatrana X rajah X rajah etc, that's unnatural as these species can't coexist in the same habitat and it's man-made intervention what's producing these pseudo-species. Gus |
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Jan 22, 2008 12:44:29 GMT 8
How is that relevant to the question he asked at all? It has nothing to do with whether the hybrids are natural or not. Who cares? The point was if a primary hybrid is diluted with one of the parent species over and over again, when can it be called the species instead of a long hybrid. Obviously people have to create the hybrids that couldn't exist in nature. That's obvious. What's your point?
|
|
|
|
Post by rainforestguy on Jan 23, 2008 1:02:49 GMT 8
An example I have is ep's N. (Rokko x bical) x bical (I think) and the plant resembles a pure bical except that it is twice the size of a regular bical. Yes, the pitcher has fangs as close to the real bical as can be expected. If we were to cross this further with bical, I believe the resulting offspring will resemble bical even further.
After several generations of crossing back to bical, will we see a pure bical or a hybrid thereof? Perhaps in one of its future offspring, we might see a Rokko-like character appear as if N. bical appears to make a "mutation" so how so are these "mutation" we see popping up in "pure" species, not hidden genes appearing later from many generations of it once being hybridized with another species?
M
|
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jan 23, 2008 4:10:33 GMT 8
How is that relevant to the question he asked at all? It has nothing to do with whether the hybrids are natural or not. Who cares? The point was if a primary hybrid is diluted with one of the parent species over and over again, when can it be called the species instead of a long hybrid. Obviously people have to create the hybrids that couldn't exist in nature. That's obvious. What's your point? Very much so, you just can't go around creating artificial hybrids and put them back to natural habitats, or just try putting pythons in texas Who cares!!!. I do, if you don't, well that's not my problem. YOu only see the exciting parts of phenomena Ron and not the consequences, so be careful before you crash! At some point after several back crosses, i would call it a species again. I answered your question Rainforest IMO, if phissionkorps does not understand it, that's not my problem Gus |
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jan 23, 2008 4:22:51 GMT 8
Hi Rainforest:
It's expected at some point in time to see bicalcaratas showing some rokko or should i say thorelli-maxima characteristics, but then again, one can select those plants from the same cross with more bicalcarata traits and get them ready for the next cross. At some point, you may want to introduce bicalcarata plants from other geographical areas as to minimize inbreeding. like a rokko X bical orange X bical orange X bical orange and then bical red, chances are you will be successful eradicating most of the rokko genes.
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by rainforestguy on Jan 23, 2008 4:46:56 GMT 8
I have already begun making varietal selections for N. bicalcaratas. I have seen some SEEDLINGS showing a suffusion of orange, orange and deep greens together, and eds to a form like so many rafflesiana and ampullaria, a "red lips" form with red peristome and green, to green with orange flush. I would also like to select red fangs (very red fangs) on normal bicals. I have a few that have redder lids and normal pitcher colorations of orange flushes.
I am also selecting for large pitchers from compact plants.
Having bical crossed with diminutive species and crossed back would be an ideal way to produce compact fanged pitchers. How about bical x argentii?
Then bical x argentii crossed with argentii x bical then crossed back to a pure bical and then back to the hybrid of the two. Sooner or later a compact form with fanged pitchers should emerge.
M
|
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Jan 23, 2008 6:24:38 GMT 8
Who's talking about reintroducing these hybrids back into the wild??? Totally off topic. I think we can all agree that would be a bad idea, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I understand what Michael is saying completely, but I'm having trouble wrapping myself around your wandering arguments! Try discussing the topic at hand for once, instead of being all over the place. It's so much more productive.
Inbreeding will never come into play unless you are using the same 4 or so plants over and over again. This genus has a very complex genome. Even with crossing back to the same 4 plants, considering the time Nepenthes take to flower from seed, you'd be long dead before you saw any detrimental effects due to inbreeding. Also, introducing bical genes from different locations isn't going to be any more successful at "eradicating rokko genes" (which could never truly happen, in your or my lifetime anyway) than bicals from the same location. Who cares what the color of the bicals are? That doesn't automatically elicit different location data. Look at some of the wild photos around. There can be many, many color forms and slightly different morphological changes in a single population of amp, raff, etc. Individuals vary in a population....someone needs to brush up on population genetics, and apparently genetics as a whole. I'm going to go ahead and recommend Evolution by Futuyma and Igenetics by Russell.
At times, hybrid offspring, or offspring of two "pure" parents (one or both with some hybrid genetic contribution) will exhibit an ancestral character. When that happens, it's actually a mutation and an exhibition of the ancestral state (reversion). Of course with these plants, it could simply be that that the hybrid part of the DNA gets more strongly expressed, but I don't know how possible that is, especially when the hybrid contribution would be so weakened at that point.
Depends on how dominant argentii is in hybrids. Crossing with argentii 3 times might be too much. Personally, I've never seen an argentii hybrid, but they could end up like viking hybrids...where every single one looks almost exactly the same as a viking. Argentii also has a unique pitcher shape....might be better to try with something like bellii, or both, just for safe measure. Yes, sooner or later you should be able to selectively breed what you want, but unfortunately it could be much later....like 30 years from now.
|
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jan 23, 2008 8:22:19 GMT 8
I go wherever i want: all over the place or not it's none of your business. If you don't like it, Bad Luck. you are not about to tell me what to say or not here. If it's too difficult for you to understand, that's your problem Phissionkorps
|
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jan 23, 2008 9:00:49 GMT 8
inbreeding causes more homozygotes for alleles present thus decreasing the viability of plants carrying more homozygotic gene loads as opposed to heterozygotes caused by outbreeding. some people seem to know how the chromosomes of nepenthes mix up already when we don't even know if all of these are used anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Jan 23, 2008 9:01:22 GMT 8
Hey, I'm just trying to help things be productive. If you want to lose credibility and cause others to skip over your posts as a result of your roving and erroneous statements, that's certainly your prerogative. But until you can stay on topic, and as long as you continue to throw out incorrect info, I'll be there to catch it.  Like I said, inbreeding (in this particular case) is never going to be a problem. Stop talking genetics until you understand it (and I mean really understand it, not just think you do). Inbreeding doesn't always cause decreased viability (har har har). In fact, in some cases, not being an inbred population is dangerous. There's also such thing as outbreeding depression, but I guess that doesn't matter, since no one is going to be putting these in the wild. On that topic though, I've seen you say that man made hybrids in the wild would take over and throw everything out of balance....but then you've also said they couldn't possibly survive in their parents's conditions. Which one is it?  |
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jan 23, 2008 11:24:09 GMT 8
Gee for a university student, you have a Ph.D already. Stop being a snobbish pest and don't pretend you know genetics, because you don't. and go back to university to get your degrees. don't go ranting about reintroducing things back to the wild. Even when you don't mean to accidents do happen.
Regarding on which hybrid will survive and which one will not, will depend on the hybrid vigour display in each cross, so please stop wasting my time pretending to understand things you are yet to learn.
|
|
|
|
Post by phissionkorps on Jan 23, 2008 13:02:24 GMT 8
Oh man...are we going to do this again? I already graduated. I actually have a bio degree....and you do not. End of story. Not that you have to have one to know genetics, but it is clear you rarely, if ever, know what you're talking about. Open a book for once, and actually educate yourself before making erroneous statements, even about basic genetics. I find it funny how you think yourself an expert, with no formal training and obviously a rudimentary (at best) knowledge of the things you're trying to discuss! Maybe instead of having most of what you talk about being pointed out as rambling erroneous nonsense, you should heed your own advice  . I'd stop going after you if you didn't post before you thought. Food for thought. |
|
|
|
Post by rainforestguy on Jan 24, 2008 1:59:28 GMT 8
People think inbreeding in a small population would eventually produce weaker and perhaps expect extinction to come into play.
An example of this not being true is here in Hawai'i. A pair of wallabees was let loose in one of the hills here and wildlife experts say that these will breed and inbreed and soon die off. But after many decades of inbreeding, they have appeared to develop into a new strain/species, that have not fallen victim to inbreeding. Now we have our own strain of wallabees that are different than what they came from. These are not hybrids, just true species self perpetuating traits that are inherent between the two original parents.
Thus many species has what it takes for strengthening biodiversity even among just two individuals. I am hoping this will be true with the few tc clones being offered to us by growers who claim tc is the way to go. The current N. boschiana breeding between members who are determined to create a genetic line from pure crossbred clones of the species.
Time will tell.
M
|
|
|
|
Post by agustinfranco on Jan 24, 2008 4:13:21 GMT 8
so how so are these "mutation" we see popping up in "pure" species, not hidden genes appearing later from many generations of it once being hybridized with another species? M Hi Michael: Let's stop postulating possible outcomes and let's concentrate on your original query. After all, we are dealing with nepenthes. The main issue here is that you reported that some pure species are showing characteristics of unwanted ancestral origin. If the chromosomes are so varied and diverse why is it that one might still get bicalcarata-like plants with the some rokko traits. Don't you think that if a particular chromosome pool for a plant is so varied that after several backcrosses any unwanted trait should be able to disappear and yet it still shows up. It may sound that chromosome selection is not a random event and backcrossing does produce more homozygotic traits, especially using plants from the same geographical region. and for my friend phissionkorps, yes i have more degrees in molecular biology and genetics than you can ever imagine. For starters, A.Sc, B.Sc., M.Sc, and Ph.D in molecular microbiology, and 3 post doctoral studies in Cancer Genetics and 2 patent applications in molecular diagnostics. So please boy, stop being so arrogant and learn a bit of humility in your life. it helps. If not ask your parents, since you don't believe me, perhaps you believe them. Gus Gus |
|
|
|
Post by rainforestguy on Jan 24, 2008 5:48:45 GMT 8
I'm a little lost here. I originally posted a remark regarding the crossing of a Rokko x bical back to a bical. The offspring from this set appears to be pure bical (fangs as a true bical, and even coloration as a true bical), yet the plant is larger than a bical and of course a Rokko.
My remark regarding some species showing ancestral hybridizing is with the current case in point, N. platychila. A species with widely "accepted" morphological variations. Are these pure species or just reversions of previous hybridizations (with fusca) from previous crossings with nearby species.
Now at which point do we call N. platychila (as an example in this scenario) N. platychila as being a true species?
If this is the case then we might as well call N. Hookeriana a true species as well too!
M
|
|
. I'd stop going after you if you didn't post before you thought. Food for thought.