Post by atroviridis on Mar 23, 2018 10:49:57 GMT -5
Hi everyone. This is what I've been thinking about recently. Is it possible to make seeds with location data and if so, I was wondering if there are rules about doing it? What if the two parent plants came from two different sites in the same county? Would the offspring still be fit to have that location data? What if there were multiple species growing in the same county but hybrids of those plants never naturally existed? Then one crossed them; would those be fit to have location data? The other thing is, when growing out seeds in cultivation, one couldn't help but select for plants that are better suited for cultivation. I'm guessing this would be fine at first, but after many generations even though the plants would still have genetics that originated from a certain location they would be different than the original plant; can location data be applied to these plants? On a slight tangent, I'm growing out some flava seeds from one of my plants that was open pollinated. I'm guessing that the flowers were pollinated from other flowers on the same plant because when it bloomed they were the only ones open in my collection. Does this have the same affect as selfing? Is it worth it to grow out the seedlings or are the plants going to be weak and not vigorous? Thanks in advance for any responses!
Answer to question 1 No you cant make seeds with location data even if its from the same species in the same county Why? well those two populations are genetically unique and mixing them would make a mix of those two Answer to question 2 if you cross two different species from a the same county you cant give the hybrid location data Answer to question 3 Plants with location data in cultivation can only truly be grown from seed if those seeds came from the wild population. This is why just as for hybrids pants with location data should only be divisions of an original mother plant who was grow from wild seeds Answer to question 4 yes that counts as selfing unless you have multiple pants in that one pot and its hard to say if they will be weak or not
Yes you can technically make seeds with location data between plants from different sites within the same county, but that data would only apply to county level rather than the more specific and (especially wherein the populations are a fair distance apart, ex. in a very large county particularly) valuable in genetic terms population locale. As a county can be as small as a couple square miles (and pollen can and will travel that distance) or perhaps many dozens, it's more a case-by-case basis whether or not the two "locations" consist of truly separate populations or not. Yes, if two plants were from the same population and were crossed, even if a hybrid had never been witnessed (evidence of backcrossing in many locations has been noted even when the hybrid per se was not found or no longer extant) technically the hybrid seeds could be labeled with locality data, but should also be noted that it was a cross made in cultivation (ex. hort.). Yes, plants grown from seeds produced by plants only from a specific population are still that locality even if the selfing or clone cross was done in cultivation, ex. the many "Hurricane Creek" plants that have been grown out generation after generation from seeds as well as clones, the Transylvania Co. purps that have been distributed on here, etc. The seeds do not necessarily have to be of wild origin, and certainly are not traded as such very often (there are plenty of seeds distributed as locales that were produced horticulturally and have been in several consecutive generations, like many of the oreophila, jonesii, alabamensis locales distributed especially since wild collection is either illegal or very hard to get permission for). They often carry extra designations for clones etc. but are still locality-correct; might be more suited for cultivation but they are not a genetic combo that couldn't occur in the wild either just because they're not in the wild. If the flava flowers were the only ones open and active, and there is no one in your area also growing Sarracenia that might have had something in flower, then it's most likely it's a selfing. Plenty of selfing crosses are done all the time too and plenty of plants turn out perfectly fine from them, and the weak ones will either purge themselves or be selected against by the grower.
Those who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones that do.
A consideration that has not been given enough spotlight is the process of Genetic Drift. Over generations, the resulting population could be different from the original parents, not by outcrossing, but via selective pressures. Survivors may trend towards those responding well to certain cultural practices, or local diseases.
This can be a very slow or very fast process. It helps to examine survival rates of offspring. If 50% of a population dies from selective pressures, your population may be changing in genetic profile. If 99% of the offspring survive, the likelihood of genetic drift is reduced. Chance mutations are always possible.
To maintain location characteristics in the best way, vegetative propagation is a superior method to maintain historically accurate genetics. We maintain a great many plants removed (with permission) from now-extinct sites. In our collection, the only plants with location information are those salvaged from sites where the plants faced certain doom. Endosymbionts dwell within these plants, something you cannot easily reproduce with seeds. Our "location specific" plants are propagated only via division to sidestep any probable chance of genetic drift.
It would be helpful if seed-grown, "location specific" plants were marked "1st generation seedlings, 2nd generation", etc. That would, at least, give perspective relative to the original population or individual plant. The higher the generational number, the greater the likelihood that genetic deviation from wild type has occurred by mutation and/or genetic drift.
Very interesting thread! First of all, the hobby interest in location-specific plants is a very precious thing and I encourage everyone to responsibly acquire and then steward some extinct or unprotected site genetics. I also think it is great that there is interest in breeding these plants rather than keeping them as museum pieces. Labeling and record-keeping are key, and the distinction between county-specific and site-specific is important. Original clones should be preserved and labeled as such, and county-level crosses vs. specific site crosses should also be labeled as such. If possible, write both parent clones on the tag so there is more information on lineage.
An important caveat here is that because administrative boundaries like counties are drawn with no respect to genetic facts on the ground, plants from the same county may be very different genetically. A great example of this is Bay County, FL. The flavas from the eastern part of the county are a completely different "strain" from the more westerly types, with a major river drainage separating them. For this reason, while crossing S. flava "Outlaw" (western type) with one of Mike's Bay Co. rubricorpora/ornata clones (eastern type) would technically still be Bay Co. genetics, and would no doubt yield pretty plants, I do not feel they would possess the genetic distinctiveness that is the entire point of locality to begin with. A caveat to the caveat is that 99.99% of wild Sarracenias have been destroyed and therefore just as it's hard to reconstruct a bread loaf from two crumbs, it's now impossible to know the relationships between different strains and make decisions about breeding accordingly.
There are also different kinds of breeding projects that can go on, each with different implications for the site specific plants. Let's say a grower has a "population" of 15 clones from a specific site. Taking the two most vigorous, colorful, all-around-pleasing etc. clones and crossing them is a different proposition from mixing pollen from all 15 and using that to fertilize all the flowers. The former is a horticultural project with valid aesthetic goals, while the latter is more suitable for preserving genetic diversity (and producing more seed than one knows what to do with!). Neither is right or wrong, but growers need to be aware of how they breed will affect the outcome down the line. Since so little is left, we have to do the best we can. As long as us growers keep accurate records and do not make overly specific claims about provenance, we can have a limited but still valuable role in perpetuating these plants.
sanguinearocks101: What are good plants to make hybrids with S. luecophylla with? Im looking for dark colors.
Sept 10, 2020 18:46:52 GMT -5
adaetz100: Sarracenia purpurea tends to add a lot of red/purple to its offspring, but there are some lovely dark red flava x leucophylla crosses too. Look up 'Royal Ruby' if you're not familiar with it already--it's a natural flava x leuco hybrid
Sept 22, 2020 20:15:04 GMT -5
sarrseens: How about $50
Oct 3, 2020 10:35:54 GMT -5