Lyshack said: That's interesting. I didn't know there was a Prairie Blue Eyes (dip) and a Chicago Blue Eyes (tet). I didn't know Marsh did that, either. And it does seem odd that people would prefer to bybridize with the converted tet Prairie Blue Eyes instead of the Chicago Blue Eyes. The only thing I can think of is the convertered version may have had bigger blooms and scapes, which will happen. Prairie Blue Eyes was 4 inches taller than Chicago Blue Eyes to start wtih. Maybe it was a significantly larger plant when converted.

For those that don't know, Marsh (John?) was hybridizing as tets were being developed. A lot of early hybridizers specialized in tets or dips. But Marsh had a line of dips, many wtih "Prairie" as the first word, and he also experimented with tets and named a lot of them with "Chicago" as the first word.

James Marsh. I suspect that it didn't do as well as Prairie Blue Eyes, which grows well almost anywhere. One of the advantages that tets have over converted dips is that tets are stable, whereas converted dips can be tetraploid, but also different ploidies as well. Chimerism is not unusual, nor is it unheard of for converted plants to revert. Marsh himself made mention of it, it having happened to him. My opinion is that it's better just to start with tets, as they seem a lot more stable, and largely you know what you're getting. That's not to say that there aren't problems with tetraploid breeding, but most seems to come from converted plants. Just because a part of a plant tests as tetraploid, there's no guarantee that the entire plant is tetraploid. The best person to ask is James Gossard. Is he a member here?

Edit: It doesn't seem so. Perhaps Admmad might assist us.

It always seems confusing to me to talk about tets and converted dips(Isn't that how tets become tets, by converting Dips)?
I do realize that unsuccessful conversions can be other ploidies, and can also revert. Maybe I am just misunderstanding the terminology? I have read Guy Pierce discuss the strong effect of using Tet conversions for hybridizing, but never fully understood exactly what that meant, unless he was referring to first generation conversions?
Is it that the original conversion of a dip to a tet somehow has stronger influence when doing crosses than later divisions of that same tet?
Of course I suppose if you were actually converting dips to actually create a different ploidy than a tet, then that would not be a failed conversion.
Seems like I have read explanations of this before but obviously it did not stick in my memory.

Edited to add Google Bard (AI) reply to my query. I thought it was very good.

The initial conversion process from diploid to tetraploid in daylilies is fascinating and plays a crucial role in shaping the characteristics of the resulting tetraploid offspring. Here's what happens during this conversion and how it affects the traits:

Duplication and Disruption:

The most basic effect of conversion is the doubling of the entire chromosome set. This means each cell in the tetraploid plant contains four sets of chromosomes instead of the two found in the diploid parent.
However, this doubling isn't always perfect. Sometimes, chromosomes can break, fuse, or rearrange during the conversion process. These alterations can lead to:
Loss of genetic material: Some genes might be lost if chromosome segments are deleted during conversion. This can result in the loss of specific traits present in the diploid parent.
Gene dosage changes: Depending on the type of rearrangement, some genes might be present in more or fewer copies than the original diploid. This can alter existing traits or even lead to the emergence of new ones.
Retention and Novelty:

While some traits might be lost or altered, many characteristics of the original diploid parent are often retained in the tetraploid offspring. This is because the majority of the genetic material remains intact during the conversion process.
However, the presence of four sets of chromosomes can lead to novel traits in several ways:
Increased gene expression: With more copies of each gene, some might be expressed more strongly, leading to intensified versions of existing traits like larger flowers, deeper colors, or sturdier stems.
Masking of recessive alleles: Recessive traits present in the diploid parent but masked by dominant alleles can become visible in the tetraploid if all four alleles are recessive. This can lead to the unexpected appearance of new characteristics.
Novel gene interactions: The combination of four sets of chromosomes opens up possibilities for new interactions between genes, potentially leading to the emergence of entirely new traits or variations of existing ones.
Overall, the initial tetraploid conversion in daylilies acts like a genetic cocktail shaker. It retains the essence of the diploid parent while introducing elements of novelty and unpredictability through chromosome doubling, disruption, and novel interactions. This combination is what makes tetraploid daylilies such a valuable source of diversity and innovation in breeding programs.

It's important to remember that the specific effects of conversion can vary greatly depending on the individual plant, the method used for conversion, and the randomness of chromosome behavior during the process. This adds another layer of intrigue to this fascinating aspect of daylily breeding.

@Seedfork I would not rely on the information Google Bard provides, at least for this subject. There are statements that are made that are superficially correct but that are not common. What happens when a diploid plant is converted to tetraploid depends at least partially on the methods used. The differences between diploid characteristics and tetraploid characteristics derive partially from the effect of a larger amount of genetic material and partly from the larger number of possible combinations and interactions.
The intention when successfully converting a diploid to tetraploid is that all of the genetic material remains intact and is duplicated. Losses and gains of genetic material can occur in diploids or tetraploids. They can certainly occur when trying to produce a tetraploid from a diploid but are not desired normally. At times changes in characteristics are desired and they can be deliberately produced even without a change in ploidy.

Maurice,
I do normally have to make some changes and corrections when conversing with Google Bard. We have had some interesting conversations about daylilies recently.
Bard reponds, I make suggestions Bard immediately makes corrections and thanks me for helping "him" to learn about the subject. Bard has given me many incorrect answers, but If I respond with the correct information Bard responds with an apology and quickly makes corrections. I find it very interesting and it really seems to help me learn as much or more than Bard does.
I read over the above response by Bard as carefully as I could with my limited knowledge and saw no corrections that needed to be made. Maurice do you see any statements in his response that are not correct?

Chicago Blue Eyes (Marsh, 1976)
height 24 inches (61 cm), bloom 5.5 inches (14 cm), season E, Rebloom, Semi-Evergreen, Tetraploid, Lavender and blue blend with blue lavender eyezone and cream green throat. (Chicago Frost × Chicago Two Bits)

Chicago Frost (Marsh, 1972)
height 22 inches (56 cm), bloom 5.75 inches (15 cm), season M, Semi-Evergreen, Tetraploid, Lavender self with green throat.

Chicago Two Bits (Marsh, 1972)
height 26 inches (66 cm), bloom 6.25 inches (16 cm), season M, Semi-Evergreen, Tetraploid, Purple with deeper eyezone and green throat.

Prairie Blue Eyes (Marsh, 1970)
height 28 inches (71 cm), bloom 5.25 inches (13 cm), season M, Semi-Evergreen, Diploid, Lavender with near blue eyezone and green throat. (Prairie Hills × Lavender Flight)

It is difficult to be certain but there does not appear to be much if any genetic relationship between 'Chicago Blue Eyes' and 'Prairie Blue Eyes'. I would assume that the two plants are not similar enough for them to be considered as simply different ploidies of an equivalent plant.

The diploid 'Prairie Blue Eyes' may have been converted to tetraploid. If it was successfully converted it does not appear to have produced many registered offspring.
This appears to be the first one,
Sheepscot Valley Hopeful (Barth-N., 1999)
height 33 inches (84 cm), bloom 6.25 inches (16 cm), season M, Dormant, Tetraploid, 12 buds, 4 branches, Bluish purple with lighter bluish purple watermark above green yellow throat. (Lady Grosvenor × Tet. Prairie Blue Eyes)

There are no daylilies registered as having 'Sheepscot Valley Hopeful' as a parent.

My questions would be, who converted the diploid 'Prairie Blue Eyes' and who determined that it was in fact converted and is still converted.

@seedfork, Most of the statements Bard made are both correct and incorrect.
Bard "However, this doubling isn't always perfect. Sometimes, chromosomes can break, fuse, or rearrange during the conversion process. "
That may be correct as a generalization. However, that is not common, nor is it what is desired when the conversion process is attempted. It is also not unique to the conversion process. That is, it occurs in normal diploid x diploid crosses as well. As far as I know (but I have not searched the original scientific literature on this specific topic) there is no difference between the rates at which those types of "errors" occur in normal reproduction versus successful conversions. Again, it is not wanted in normal conversions. Nor, as far as I know, would the conversion process be used to produce such changes when they were desired. There are other methods that are likely to be used to produce such changes, when they are desired.
Those same "problems" also occur in normal tetraploid x tetraploid crosses. In the case of tetraploid x tetraploid crosses the problems occur much more frequently than in diploid x diploid crosses and are part of the reason why tetraploid crosses are less successful and produce fewer seeds than diploid x diploid crosses.

The potential problems with conversions are not desired when converting a diploid plant to a tetraploid. Nor are they the reason that tetraploid conversions are different from their diploid versions.

Bard "Masking of recessive alleles: Recessive traits present in the diploid parent but masked by dominant alleles can become visible in the tetraploid if all four alleles are recessive."
I would want to see evidence that this has ever been observed in conversions. It requires that a plant that is Aa becomes converted to aaaa. I suspect that it does not occur any more often in the process of converting a diploid to a tetraploid than it does naturally in diploids.

When a diploid is converted to a tetraploid there are fundamental changes that are related to the amount of DNA per cell and both the area of the cells and their volumes. The number of mitochondria and chloroplasts that the cells contain may also affect the characteristics of the cells and the plants.

Bard "While some traits might be lost or altered, many characteristics of the original diploid parent are often retained in the tetraploid offspring. This is because the majority of the genetic material remains intact during the conversion process."

I do not know of any complete conversion of a diploid to tetraploid where a trait of the diploid was lost in the tetraploid. As far as I know all the characteristics of the diploid are retained in the tetraploid. There are fundamental changes that are caused by the amount of DNA in each cell as indicated above.

In reality, although there are many more possible genetic and visible characteristic possibilities in tetraploids versus diploids, the substantial differences are those related to the characteristics that are affected by the sizes and volumes of cells. Many of the visible differences between diploids and tetraploids have been found in diploids first. That is at least part of the reason that diploids are still being converted to tetraploids. Visible differences that have been first found in tetraploids were quite possibly only found first in tetraploids because so many more hybridizers work with tetraploids versus diploids and so many more tetraploid versus daylilies are registered each year.

Thanks Maurice,
I have to rate Bard as being pretty darn good then. It stood up to a scientific criticism better than the great majority of my sources would I am afraid.

@Seedfork
You are welcome Larry, but please note that I did not go through the Bard responses item by item - I picked out those items that would not require research on my part to answer.
Also, Google has restricted access to the Bard and I am unable to do any tests on it. Since it included inappropriate information in its response and since there is no way that a user can determine what is appropriate and what is inappropriate in its responses I would not consider it very useful, currently.

I should point out that plants and animals have had their chromosomes doubled naturally in the past. Over many millions of years they have been doubled and redoubled, etc. After each doubling, natural selection has acted to reduce the number of chromosomes and to change many of the doubled genes to either new functions, no function or modified functions, etc. Natural selection will also have acted to increase/restore fertility.

For Hemerocallis/daylilies, the last time the chromosomes were doubled (called whole genome duplication - WGD) is estimated to have been about 15.7 million years ago (mya). So diploid daylilies were "naturally converted" about 16 mya. Since then, nature has been slowly re-establishing them as "diploids" - a process called diploidization. Rough estimates of how long, on average, it takes for the diploidization to more or less completely occur suggest that for daylilies they are about half-way. There will be many genes in diploid daylilies that are present as four copies, possibly with all four copies fully functional in exactly the same way. Since that last WGD event occurred some time before Hemerocallis divided into different species, it is possible, probably likely, that the different species have different numbers of the same active genes.

admmad said: It is difficult to be certain but there does not appear to be much if any genetic relationship between 'Chicago Blue Eyes' and 'Prairie Blue Eyes'. I would assume that the two plants are not similar enough for them to be considered as simply different ploidies of an equivalent plant.

One of the advantages that orchids have over daylilies is that when the registration is made, the names of both parents must be listed. Furthermore, the cross itself is registered, referred to as a grex, not the individual plants, so if someone wishes to recreate the cross, utilizing different color forms, it can be done. There is little reason to believe that Prairie Blue Eyes and Chicago Blue Eyes are closely related, given the nature of daylily ploidy. Not impossible, but I wouldn't bet my milk money on it.

admmad said: The diploid 'Prairie Blue Eyes' may have been converted to tetraploid. If it was successfully converted it does not appear to have produced many registered offspring.
This appears to be the first one,
Sheepscot Valley Hopeful (Barth-N., 1999)
height 33 inches (84 cm), bloom 6.25 inches (16 cm), season M, Dormant, Tetraploid, 12 buds, 4 branches, Bluish purple with lighter bluish purple watermark above green yellow throat. (Lady Grosvenor × Tet. Prairie Blue Eyes)

A friend of mine, Brian Reeder, owner of Sun Dragon Daylilies, had this to say on the topic:

Little Dragon On The Prairie is the result of going back to the tetraploid conversion of tetra Prairie Blue Eyes. The tetraploid conversion of Prairie Blue Eyes has been around for a long time, but hasn't been used much in tetraploid breeding, and its great genetic potential has made little impact on modern tetraploid lineages. The diploid Prairie Blue Eyes has consistently shown good rust resistance over many years and in many gardens, as well as other good traits such as hardiness to cold winters, great pod fertility and gorgeous clear coloring. The tetraploid conversion offers all these traits at the tetraploid level, including high pod fertility.

The full article may be found here: http://daylilybreeder.blogspot...

There are no daylilies registered as having 'Sheepscot Valley Hopeful' as a parent.

KJMarionGallant is listed as owning it. Perhaps we could ask her?

My questions would be, who converted the diploid 'Prairie Blue Eyes' and who determined that it was in fact converted and is still converted.

No definitive answer that I could find. But a plausible answer might be James Marsh himself, who utilized converted dips in his breeding programs. I'm sure that the answer is out there, but I am unable to find it.

Hopes this helps.