Mark Carpenter lists 'One Day at a Time' as a diploid and gives one parent as 'Gene Walker' which is registered as a diploid.
"DIP – T-00-GWE – (22”-ERe-5”-Ev) – GENE WALKER X SEEDLING – What a delightful performer this has been over the years. The near white flowers are accented with gorgeous deep, dark, plum-purple eyes and edges making for a bold, beautiful, contrast in the flower faces. Your garden will be blessed ONE DAY AT A TIME and every day this lovely lady presents her sweet face. The eyes have a feathered venation as they pass deeply into the bright green throats. Four-way branched scapes have 28 buds, and plants are pod fertile. "

at http://www.lilyfarm.com/oneday...

I had to go check it out and its lovely. My only complaint would be scape height. I like a minimum of at least 26".

Thank you, admmad - I believe you were one of the people who was in some of the discussion I remember from years ago...

Though Julie says she has a converted Ed Murray, I don't believe they were that common back when I remember the discussion about it being used on tets and dips.

In one of the links I gave above, without going back and re-reading, I believe Benz says that the non converted Ed worked just as well as the conversion, and also that Ed is not a triploid? It's all confusing... but interesting! Triploids are generally considered sterile, aren't they?

I am curious, then, how Ed Murray shows up as having child plants where it is both the pod and pollen parent of tets yet seems to be only pollen parent on dips?
I didn't keep track exactly, but looking down through the child plants, the tets look about even on if Ed Murray was on the pod or pollen side when a tet was registered.

Midnight Magic - Tet with EM as pod parent
Serena Dark Horse - Tet with EM as pollen parent

Diploids - far fewer intros than tets - I think there were 5? but EM was always on the pollen side.
Jupiter Lighthouse - dip - Night Wings x (Black Cat x Ed Murray)
Thornbird - dip - Little Grapette x Ed Murray
Bangladesh - dip - Yazoo Beauty x Ed Murray

One Day At a Time is listed as a Tetraploid in the 2005 checklist. It would appear the registration info in the database and checklist may be incorrect if the website is correct.

Juli,

I bought Tet Ed Murray in the late 90's and it was very commonly sold back then - I don't think the tet version cost much more than the dip back then - not sure when the discussion about it was held, probably earlier than that since this cultivar has been around a long time! I still grow it.

Regarding the Carpenter cultivar, since the printed checklist is the official record of registration and the hybridizer is still alive, the only way for the incorrect data to be changed is for the hybridizer to request a change in the data!

It is easy to assume that mistakes are always transcribed into the database and that is not always the case. Any of you who register daylilies know that once you receive registration confirmation, you receive a copy of the data submitted that you should check all submitted data very carefully. Any errors you find on the registration sheet should be sent to the registrar immediately so that corrections can be made then. I wish that everyone would check the proof sheets carefully, but know that regrettably this doesn't always happen. I have personally seen such instances recently when proofing the 2012 checklist before it was published.

Julie, I'm sorry - I didn't mean to imply that you didn't buy a tet conversion - I was trying to say that I don't think tet conversions of it were common back when I was reading about it. John Benz, in the link I gave above, does not say when he was experimenting with the "regular" and Tet versions. I do recall that I didn't pay much for Ed Murray when I was using it - so I'm reasonably sure I didn't have a conversion.

Thank you for the link. I was over on that site earlier today and checked both the available and unavailable cultivars list and price list and saw no mention of this particular daylily. I, too, wish people would double check their proof sheet as I had purchased "One Day" specifically because it was a tet per the AHS and seller's site. Had it been registered as a Gene Walker child, I would have at least known there was a problem as I have Gene Walker, too, and was aware that it is a diploid. But, alas, it is registered as a seedling x seedling. Oh well

The first 2 pods set with tet pollen were pollinated 15 days and 13 days ago and are still going strong so it'll be interesting to see if they are still here by day 35.

Thank you for everyone's help

'Ed Murray' (EM)

Ed Murray was considered to be sterile. It is not a triploid to the best of my knowledge as someone did do a chromosome count of its roots and found approximately 22 chromosomes rather than 33. The approximate is because some of the chromosomes did not spread out well for them when they spread them for the microscope and so were probably on top of each other.

Ed Murray was converted to tetraploid by at least one hybridizer and possibly more than one.

However, the hybridizer who converted it then learned about something called 'unreduced gametes' or '2n gametes' which diploids can sometimes make.

Unreduced gametes

A diploid has 22 chromosomes. When it makes pollen or ovules (its gametes) it reduces that number to one-half for both the pollen and the ovules. So the pollen and ovules have 11 chromosomes. When the two gametes combine, the seedling gets 22 chromosomes as it should to be a diploid.

Sometimes in making the pollen and ovules mistakes happen and instead of having 11 chromosomes they end up with 22 chromosomes. The mistakes are rare and some plant species make more mistakes than others. Very high temperatures and very low temperatures when the pollen and ovules are being made cause some of the mistakes. Others are caused by the plant being a mutant and simply having a faulty mechanism for making pollen or ovules or sometimes both. Pollen or ovules with 22 chromosomes (the normal diploid number) are called unreduced gametes because they should have had 11 chromosomes or the reduced number.

Sometimes a diploid flower will have lots of normal pollen (11 chromosomes) and a few unreduced pollen grains (22 chromosomes). Sometimes if one of the unreduced pollen grains is successful with a diploid ovule a triploid plant will be produced. So unions of unreduced gametes with normal diploid gametes are thought to be how triploid (33 chromosomes) daylilies were created naturally.

If an unreduced gamete (22 chromsosomes) from a diploid joins with a normal gamete (22 chromosomes) from a tetraploid then a normal tetraploid (44 chromosomes) seedling will be formed.

The hybridizer who learned about unreduced gametes then thought to try the normal EM with tetraploids. He produced some seedlings. He then changed his mind about the success of his converted tetraploid EM and decided it had not been converted successfully. Some people selling converted EM as a converted plant then seem to have dropped the converted description. The end result was that buying Ed Murray was a gamble. One might be receiving the diploid or a possibly converted tetraploid.

Ed Murray is able to produce unreduced gametes. When its pollen is looked at under a microscope its size is best described as 'giant' - it is much larger than a normal diploid's pollen. That is what should be the case since size in plants depends usually on the number of chromosomes and normal tetraploids have larger pollen than normal diploids.

Many hybridizers then used Ed Murray with tetraploids and produced tetraploid introductions. It is not known whether some, most, all or none of them used the diploid version or a treated possibly converted tetraploid version.

The complications do not end.

The verdict for EM's sterility at the time when there was much discussion was that EM was not fertile with diploids but was fertile (a little) with tetraploids. What about the diploid registrations from EM? I don't know anything about 'Jupiter Lighthouse' or 'Bangladesh'. But it turns out that 'Thornbird' is not a diploid; it is a tetraploid. People have looked at 'Little Grapette' pollen and I believe repeated the cross but were not successful in producing seedlings and did not find 'giant' pollen. That caused some to decide that 'Little Grapette' was not the pod parent but that 'Little Grape' was a possible pod parent and the registration was in error. 'Little Grape' is a tet while 'Little Grapette' is a diploid.

Some people have suggested that unreduced gametes be used instead of converting diploids to tetraploids. However, Arisumi looked at how frequently daylilies produce unreduced gametes and it is very rare and not practical for daylilies. He produced 2 tetraploids from several thousand pollinations. Of course those pollinations must be done in insect-free conditions so that there is no chance that natural pollinations occur. That is, the cross would be tetraploid x diploid (to use unreduced gametes to produce a tetraploid seedling) and one must be certain that no tetraploid pollen can land on the stigma. One also must check the number of chromosomes in any seedlings that are produced since it is approximately 15 times more probable that they are triploids than they are tetraploids.

In my growing conditions I find that EM pollen usually looks sterile but it seems to look better and possibly be more fertile when the weather has been very hot. Unfortunately, that does not happen here much. The Ed Murray I grow does rarely set a mature pod after I pollinate all its flowers (clump) and I have seen a single seed in such pods that looks normal. I have never bothered to plant them.

Thank you so much! That is the best explanation I believe I have read of the issue.

I know the hybridizer of Jupiter Lighthouse. She keeps good records, but I suppose it is possible some bee pollination snuck in there. From what I recall of seeing JL, the plant would appear to be dip, but the vibrancy of color it has now makes me wonder.

Bee pollination over my pollination sure would account for the one seedling I had from all my efforts working with EM. I used it on reds and as I recall, the seedling was a barking dog nowhere close to red.

Again, thank you for explaining all that!

One way to check the ploidy of plants such as 'Jupiter Lighthouse' is to use their pollen on diploids known to be pod fertile and on tetraploids known to be pod fertile. Say ten pollinations on each type of pod parent. Expect pods to set. Wait five weeks and count how many pods remain of the ones that were set. If the tested plant is a diploid then the diploid pod parent should have kept most of its pods and the tetraploid pod parent should have lost most of its pods. And vice versa.

If there are some doubts with the conclusion based on just counting pods then open the pods and count the seeds that look good. The pod parent with the most good seeds should indicate the ploidy of the tested plant. The pod parent with the wrong ploidy should have very few, if any, good seeds.

I do not have very hot days In my growing conditions so it is very rare for a tet x dip or dip x tet pollination to last much more than ten days here. In climates with many very hot days that may be different. My experience is much the same as Arisumi's that daylilies rarely make mistakes when making gametes and unreduced gametes are very rare, but in climates with very hot days that might be different.

The parentage of 'Jupiter Lighthouse' is admittedly confusing, as 'Night Wings' is a tet!

Hmmmmmm
I will be visiting her in a few weeks. I will ask her, and also see about getting some pollen.

I would agree that 'Night Wings' is a tetraploid, although the ploidy appears to be missing in the AHS database. If 'Night Wings' was the pod parent to 'Jupiter LIght House' then that would basically make it also a tetraploid.

[Although there are theoretical ways that a daylily might produce a seed from an ovule without any contribution from the pollen it is highly unlikely and that would be the way that a tetraploid could produce a diploid.]

You mentioned Serena Dark Horse and I have that one and it is most definitely a tetraploid. Sets lots of pods for me.

I had emailed the lily farm (the hybridizer) regarding the ploidy of "One Day at a Time" and, per their response yesterday, they have it recorded as a tet -not a diploid - with it being a tet seedling x tet seedling. I have asked for some clarification so, hopefully, the ploidy and history will become more clear. To date, the AHS has it as a tet, the lily farm has it recorded as a tet (per their email), but the lily farm link admmad posted above shows it as a dip and it has a diploid child according to the AHS. The tet pods I set show no sign of aborting yet on day 18 and all look to be developing normally. I did attempt to set 2 more dip pods (for a total of 3 dips) but it is too early to tell if they'll take.

Looks like they are just as confused!

At least I'm not alone in my

I harvested the first seeds from One Day at a Time. The pollen parent was a tet and the seeds look good but few. So.. it appears that it is indeed a tet - not a Gene Walker child. I still do not understand why it has a diploid child registered but ??