Looking at the Telmarc Garden's website, has anyone read Terry McGarty's e-book? I am wondering if it is a worthwhile read? It looks interesting and useful.

"Hemerocallis Species, Hybrids, and Genetics"
http://www.telmarcgardens.com/...

Note: This is big file - it 437pp long. 7.35mb.

i downloaded this book in 2012 and never got disciplined enough to read it through ... perhaps we could start a book-reading club here to encourage each other with discussion of the chapters one-by-one? I'm game if you are ... the topics sound very helpful to anyone who is dabbing pollen.

I'd be up for making a reading club for it.

Awesome There are only nine chapters, and Chapter 1 is about 10 pages (with lotsa pictures, yay!) regarding general info on history, 12 main species-lines used in hybridization in North America, color and pattern inheritance, daylily forms, and interspersed in the chapter are questions posed to readers to ponder as it then points to answers that will be covered in the remaining chapters.

I'd be interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on Chapter 1, at each person's pace (whenever they finish it and have something to share), as well as questions that come up, and especially clarifications they might have (or need) as to some of the terminology that is introduced (F1, phenotype, etc.). Overall, it strikes me that it is a great book even for beginners and presents ideas in plain English as much as possible.

Maybe we can all help each other learn - I'm a rank beginner and love to learn even through the errors in my attempts to understand! Each re-clarification is a step forward.

Thanks, Glen, for bringing this free-download book to attention, and hoping you will jump back in tonight to take the discussion where you intended it to go, as I've just as likely strayed from the mark.

I would also be interested in learning. I am a beginner also and need all the info. I can get!!

Tina, that is a good idea. I have never been a member of a book club too. I will read Chapter 1 today.

I'll start chapter 1 this afternoon while I wait in the dentist's office.

I have a background in genetics, biology, etc.

I started to read it several years ago and managed to get to page 16. I stopped because I had found what I felt were serious problems in the information.

What did you feel were serious problems, Maurice? It may well be helpful to work through them, as part of the journey of learning. Not everything in science is agreed upon unanimously, or science would have left off long ago, and seeing what each person holds true to their own understanding is always enlightening!

So, here's my take on Chapter 1. (page 10 to 24)

The author is an MIT PhD whose interdisciplinary studies had a focus in medical imaging and optical processing (branches of Engineering and Medicine), with training in Botany and Horticulture (New York Botanical Gardens), and genomics (the function of complete sets of DNA) done while at MIT. He has been a Professor at MIT, Columbia University, George Washington University, and the Polytechnic University, as well as a Board Member of Yorktown University. He has hybridized daylilies for over 25 years, including crosses between species and modern hybrids, at his AHS Display Garden.

In his Introductory Chapter 1 he outlines the importance of approaching selective breeding (hybridization, as opposed to happenstance) with developing an attention to visual detail, consistent records, and clarifying terminology. For example, he shows us that when we cross modern cultivars we are really inbreeding on mainly 12 historical, stable species' lines in order to create various new cultivars with intensified colors, shapes, and patterns. Each of those foundational species contributed unique visual characteristics, among other attributes.

He begins his discussion of general color inheritance by outlining the hybridization of Hyperion, an early cultivar developed by F.B. Mead in 1924. Through this we learn about the sources for our modern daylily cultivars. He also introduces the concept of what I believe are pedigree generations (F0 are original parents, with the resulting offspring being F1, and so on). I try to remember the notation by calling “F” Family … Family 0 (F0) is like “ground zero” - the central trunk of the tree. Family 1 (F1) are children, F2 are grandkids, and so on. Recent cultivars can be found in the F40 range or more from species origins, after so many years of hybridization. These are believed to be the three F0 plants in Hyperion's ancestry:



There may be some confusion or disagreement about the third ancestor, either h. aurantiaca (Red-Orange medium with markings, bitone, or polychromeor) or h. aurantiaca Major (Yellow-Orange medium self) photo at http://www.hemerocallis-specie... ... but both are noted as having the Orange (toward the Red end of spectrum) color tone the author discusses both in Chapter 1 and later in the book (I peeked!).

So, Hyperion would be an F2 (grandkid) to these three plants which had both orange and yellow color tones. Their F1 offspring included Sir Michael Foster (recorded as an orange-yellow medium 1904 cultivar from aurantiaca Major x citrina) and an earlier introduction, Florham (recorded as a yellow-medium 1898 cross from aurantiaca Major x thunbergii). Those two hybrids, crossed together, produced F2 Hyperion, a green-yellow. Intriguing!



In the 90 years of hybridizing from the original species, he highlights modern descendants to demonstrate some of the many complex changes in daylily flower colors and patterns:


Against this backdrop of the many varied forms and colors that have been developed over the decades, all from earlier hybridizations that had origins going back to wild species plants, McGarthy then poses questions that get the reader thinking about subjects that will be addressed later on, such as: How do genes affecting flower color get turned on and off? How are the sometimes abrupt pattern changes controlled? Are shape, form and color in some way linked together, as we sometimes see them appear at the same time?

Rapid changes in daylily colors and patterns are not known to be the result of hybridizers intentional changing, somehow adding, or manually mutating color genes (and not to be confused with "beefed up" identical Tet. genes, which are a simple multiplication of Dip. genes that can result in physical enhancements). So, the book looks at the role of genes in creating and controlling changes to color, patterns and petal shapes. It also promises to look at ways for all pollen dabbers to develop a systematic model for trying to create those desired traits. He then goes on to outline remaining chapters that will inform us about those systems, and gives helpful historical background to prepare people for those readings.

I was a bit confused when he mentioned intra-cell and inter-cell. Not sure what those are.

Inter - between cells. Intra - within a cell.

Yes ... and I think with "inter" (outward interaction between cells) he may be talking about how patterns may be made (eyes, etc.), for example, by color migrating between plant cells in different areas - the color of the throat or eye can show up to also color other parts of the petal, creating an edge or multiple-colors edges with the same colors. I saw some interesting pictures of this in "Distribution of colors in the Daylily flower." by Tom Hart at http://www.hartsdaylilies.com/... (about half-way down the page).

Perhaps "intra" (inside interactions in a cell) is how different pigments in individual cells are expressed and may interact, like with the combination of Delphinidin and Cyanidin pigments creating colors of purple, violet or red, and maybe lycopene and beta-carotenes in the cell possibly making those colors appear muddy in some cultivars?

Edit: ayup, I think so ... he uses the inter (between) cell term again later, in talking about patterns, and intra (within) cell to talk about color expression (peeked again!).

Skipping over the much of the introduction and examining the first example (pg 14).

The parentage of Hyperion is stated as being:

aurantiaca X citrina -> Sir Michael Foster

aurantiaca x thunbergii -> Florham

Sir Michael Foster x Florham -> Hyperion
--
The American Hemerocallis Society(A.H. S.) registration database disagrees with this information and indicates:

Sir Michael Foster (Mueller, 1904) height 48in (122cm), season EM, Rebloom, Evergreen, Diploid, Fragrant, OYM1: Orange yellow medium self. (H. aurantiaca Major × H. citrina)

Florham (Herrington, 1899) height 48in (122cm), season EM, Rebloom, Evergreen, Diploid, Fragrant, YM1: Yellow medium self. (H. aurantiaca Major × H. thunbergii)

Stout's book provides information that agrees with the A.H.S. database and indicates that for Florham that information had been provided by its hybridizer. Muller, the hybridizer of Sir Michael Foster published its parentage in 1904 and I checked it. Stout and the A.H.S. are correct.

There is no discussion as to why the parentage was changed or evidence presented to support the changes.

The difference between H. aurantiaca and H. aurantiaca Major is important.

Stout examined both plants and published the findings. H. aurantiaca was found to be heterozygous for fulvous colouring in the flowers and evergreen habit of growth. H. aurantiaca Major was homozygous for absence of fulvous colouring and for the evergreen habit. The two plants had different flower colours. It is possible that the plant called H. aurantiaca was itself a hybrid while the plant called H. aurantiaca Major was a member of a species. Japanese daylily taxonomists have published that the species is Hemerocallis major and that daylily interspecific hybrids do exist in the wild.

H. aurantiaca was described as having orange coloured throat and of being tinged red on the petals and sepals outside of the throat. Thus it was a fulvous daylily. H. aurantiaca Major had no trace of fulvous (red) colouring in its flowers.

In flowers, the colour orange can be produced in at least three different ways.
1) by reddish-purple anthocyanin pigments alone
2) by high concentrations of yellowish carotenoid pigments
3) by orangey carotenoid pigments

Of course various combinations of the three methods above may be involved.

On the bottom of page 14 in footnote 3 we read that the results of the crosses that produced Hyperion "may imply that red is recessive and that yellow is dominant". But they do not. We read that there is "not adequate controlled set of data". However, A USDA plant geneticist, Toru Arisumi, studied the inheritance of red flower colour in daylilies and published his findings. Arisumi found that red is a dominant phenotype.

Lets go back and look at the correct parentage of the cross and flower colours:

H. aurantiaca Major (orange) x H. citrina (yellow) produced Sir Michael Foster (orange-yellow)

H.. aurantiaca Major (orange) x H. thunbergii (yellow) produced Florham (yellow)

Sir Michael Foster (orange yellow) x Florham (yellow) produced Hyperion (yellow)

Red is not involved. Had H. aurantiaca been the parent instead of H. aurantiaca Major then red (fulvous) would have been involved. There is no evidence that Major was not the parent. There is no reason to consider the suggestion that red may be recessive and yellow dominant.

Sir Michael Foster and Florham can be considered as F1s if aurantiaca Major was the parent but not if aurantiaca was the parent as it was itself probably a hybrid. It is by no means a 100.0% certainty that H. aurantiaca was a hybrid since species can be what is called polymorphic and have more than one flower colour or growth habit in the wild.

Hyperion should not be considered an F2. In plant breeding F2s are typically produced by self-pollinating the F1 plants. When they are produced by cross pollinations then the F1s that are crossed are siblings produced by the same parents. That is how we can get the expected Mendelian ratios.

Before one starts a scientific study one does an exhaustive literature search of what is known on the topic of interest. Before the Internet that meant library visits and interlibrary loans. Now nearly all the information is readily available through the computers on our desks and in our homes. All the information I have provided above was available on the Internet (usually freely) or rarely published on paper and easily available electronically.

This does not appear to be a case of some researchers interpreting observations in one way and others interpreting it in another way. I consider that my analysis leads to a lack of confidence.

Thank you for outlining your thoughts, Maurice. I'm not aware of definitive information (or photos) of the parentage you cite, and yes we can side-track discussion about color inheritance to explore ambiguities and claims about the botanical records both ways, but I was more interested in discussing the mechanisms of inheritance that the book explores, than in setting up debates about what sources or examples we each find fits best to illustrate them. I know you have with equal surety posted, for example, that no hybridizer's notations on foliage habit or cultivar ploidy can be taken at face value, and we all have seen in our own gardens how color can change so drastically depending on circumstance and the lens one uses to view things with, to mention just a few of the tips of the "uncertainty" iceberg that keep science so fluid ...

I have already learned a lot from reading Chapter 1, and I know he also mentions on his site that he "...does not take the classic Mendellian approach of assuming one gene to one color," so already we see acknowledgement that different schools of thought about the mechanisms of color inheritance persist and co-exist. I really appreciate his openness and the accessibility of his work. A little knowledge goes a long way toward unlocking the fortress doors of science to those who are intrepid enough to focus on the diversity of learning sources available (a veritable forest of trees, each different and useful in their own manner to keeping a bridge over the trolls, so to speak). And, I restate, if any science had ever found the one "true" way, it would have left off exploring further a long time ago and quickly spelled out the "correct" sequence of events once and finally for all. I love how science evolves and even overturns itself as people take a more open and inquiring approach, and leave the combative nature of the socratic method to the ancients.

Would you like to share your own take on the process of color inheritance, by chance? I am sure you would find your own ideas to be welcomed, encouraged, supported and appreciated!

To try to understand the inheritance of flower colours one needs to know the colour of the parents, possibly the grandparents and the offspring. One cannot simply change the accepted parentage and then expect to learn how the flower colours are actually being inherited.

When one reads one may always learn from what has been read. But whether what one has learned is helpful or a hindrance, is accepted or not accepted or simply is correct or wrong cannot be learned from the material being read alone.

Daylilies are not good material for 'Mendelian' genetics. In practice, in real life, many plant species are not good Mendelian genetics material. They are good material for quantitative genetics, selection, etc.

I am always happy to discuss topics/questions related to any inheritance topic including flower colour.

I'm going to provide a little information about how science works.

I have a PhD. That does not mean that what I write is necessarily correct. It does not even mean that what I write about genetics or biology is necessarily correct. (Of course I try to insure that it is always valid science but no one is perfect). Science has a formal system - called peer review that provides readers of formally published scientific material with a certain level of confidence that the material is scientifically valid, follows accepted scientific practices, is valid logically, etc. It is far from perfect but it is valuable.

When a scientific researcher has done some experiments, or made some observations, or produced some theory they write an article (called a paper) and send it to a peer-reviewed journal. There the editor decides if it meets the journal's requirements, etc., and if it does then it is sent to two or more experts on the topic covered by the paper. They decide if the science is valid, etc., and whether the paper is accepted for publication, rejected or has to be modified. Many papers are rejected for one reason or another.

After the paper has been published other experts on the topic may read it and if they disagree with the paper they may send a letter or short note to the editor which may in turn be published in the journal after going through the same sorts of processes, etc.

Readers of the journal, who are not experts on given topics are able to have some confidence that the published peer-reviewed articles are good quality science.

When one publishes scientific articles, books, etc., on the internet there is no review system. There is little way that readers not expert in the topics can determine how much confidence they can place on the material they read.

Articles published in the Daylily Journal of the American Hemerocallis Society that have scientific information have been reviewed by the Scientific Sub-committee. Readers can have some confidence that the material is valid science.

Very well said, Maurice, thanks. I am so familiar with the scientific research process, how information is handled from raw data to scientific opinion, the formation and control of journals, juried peer reviews, and the process by which those juries and overseers are chosen and how the body of reviews are performed, so your nod to their existence is well received. It is that very process that is, on the one hand, a sought after route for claims to understanding and controlling the world of science, and on the other, the school from which its practitioners and the knowledge they approve have yet to tackle some of the challenges inherent in self-rewarding systems. But, we digress!

I am most interested in hearing your alternate take on color genetics, as I mentioned before, and wonder if it is possible for you to run a complementary thread with your line of reasoning to demonstrate your own similar-inquiry-but-different-conclusion concepts (without, then, needing to stray into the arena of contested eminence ... but just as an adjunct for your own writings, which would be so very welcome by many eager readers of your posts, in a forum thread that can stand on its own bearing your titles and papers!). How awesome would that be?! :D

The fact that even long trusted sources can be fraught with uncertainties certainly does not reduce their value. Education, learning, disseminating knowledge, and reviewing the steps that lead from one to another are most dearly cherished. In that same way I believe Darwin is an example of how theory develops without direct attendant proof, Mendeleev a fellow pioneer of the 1800's who predicted elements before they were found , as well as the dance between Watson, Crick, Franklin, Wilkins and Perutz around the double helix of DNA as its shape was being imagined, imaged, and haltingly evolved, and Einstein's own 1915 theory of relativity which did not have empirical foundations .... well... we could go on and on, but we are here to read through, learn, and gather what is helpful to each of us from the book in the thread title. With that pith helmet securely re-fastened, and with hopes of seeing new forum threads that will unveil other gems of knowledge and research, I sally forth into ... Chapter 2: Form and Species! It will make for interesting reading this weekend.

chalyse,
You write so well, have you written any books? Don't plan on reading the e-book, but look forward to the discussions!

not books, just articles, and more time on the editing side in the long run (though editing did include scientific books as well) ... ... i'm glad to see you here for exploring the chapter discussions!