No i have never tried self-pollinating or crossing it, figured it was a fluke as it never happened again.

pixie62560 said:No i have never tried self-pollinating or crossing it, figured it was a fluke as it never happened again.

It was probably a fluke. Every plant that carries both red and yellow genetically is likely to show striping or spotting of some sort sooner or later even if only one section of some small size (or large, etc.). That is at least partly because in the plants the pigment is made when and where the gene is turned-on. But there is randomness or chance associated with whether a gene is turned on or not (even if it is supposed to be for the life of the cell). Sooner or later the gene to make the pigment will not be turned on when it should be and a non-coloured cell will occur. Some such switches (on or off) are inherited and can cause the spotting or striping.

chalyse said:Yes! Pitter Patter's first registered offspring, Tahitian Sorbet, did not show spots through its solid color, though it seems as color-saturated or more than the combination of some of its most recent pollen lines from creams, lemon pastel creams, and greens

However, 'Tahitian Sorbet' is a second generation offspring and from its registered information alone one cannot tell how the spotting might have been inherited since any hypothesis could result in no spots by that generation.

admmad said:
'Tahitian Sorbet' is a second generation offspring and from its registered information alone one cannot tell how the spotting might have been inherited since any hypothesis could result in no spots by that generation.

True, any time you cross a pattern (Pitter Patter) with a non-pattern (Ivelyn Brown) you can find the pattern's genes masked (Tahitian Sorbet). What I was referring to is that Spots and Stripe's hybridizer, Mussar, noted that some F1 offspring do show the spotting gene, as would also be expected. So, whoever crossed PP x IB on the way to TS probably saw some of it at F1, too, as well as anyone else who tried hybridizing with Pitter Patter in the four decades since its registration. I'm so glad they finally came forward with something to show for it. I'll be posting pictures as soon as my PP crosses bloom, too.

I can't follow a lot of this, but I sure do enjoy trying.

it is a little deep for me.

but at least I am reading and trying!

That is so awesome. That is all anyone does, and most of us read many times before there are any glimmers or sorting out done at all. We learn by mistakes, and by clarifying and asking for clarification, by trying to integrate and run the information we hear back into the conversation, and by congratulating each other for keeping on with trying! Of two things I am confident - there is not much to lose here by trying (whether through learning or doing), and even when it seems like there is no noticeable result, it is good to keep trying if there is still something that seems intriguing.

chalyse said:As you mentioned in another previous thread, there may be as much as 8% of AHS registered daylilies (whether they are trips or, my question, how many additional may be unreported dip to tet conversions and tets that have reverted to dip) which may not be listed with the correct ploidy, in addition to whatever informal conversions that make it out into circulation (http://garden.org/thread/view_... ).

Researchers have used two different techniques to determine the ploidy of registered daylily cultivars. And there are registered diploids that are not diploid and registered tetraploids that are not tetraploids and some are triploids. Two independent research groups, each using a different method found 6% and 8% of the cultivars they tested had misidentified ploidy. However, there are difficulties in translating those percentages to the actual number of cultivars in our gardens that may have incorrect ploidy.

I think that the 6-8% figure is far too high for what is actually present in most gardens. I have grown more than 600 different named cultivars and I have only found two with incorrect ploidy. One was sold to me as a converted tetraploid and had reverted to diploid - a known and reasonable situation. The other was registered as a tetraploid but is a diploid and is simply some sort of error.

When the researchers chose the cultivars to test they will have tried to make random samples of the daylilies available to them, primarily those that are sold commonly. Most of us do not grow random samples of daylilies. We tend to have special interests and we grow daylilies that meet our interests. The end result is that the cultivars that are sampled by the researchers are not representative of those we grow.

There are also daylily hybridizers who were interested in producing tetraploid conversion of diploids. Originally seed conversion was the method used by many hybridizers. The catch is that when a plant from a seed conversion did not successfully cross with tetraploids it would be assumed that it was an unconverted diploid. If the seedling was good enough to use in crosses as a tetraploid it might well be good enough to introduce as a diploid. However, some of those plants might not have been diploids,

A second known problem during the period when many diploids were being treated to convert them to tetraploids is that some hybridizers identified converted tetraploids by simple physical characteristics, such as the thickness of leaves, sizes of flowers, etc. Those methods are very unreliable so some registered tetraploids were actually diploids. The catch is that if I like a particularly hybridizer's introductions because they fit my tastes and that hybridizer was one whose registrations had ploidy problems then my daylilies may show a higher than typical number of incorrect ploidies. On the other hand, if I specialize in other types of cultivars (for example recently registered cultivars) then the number of plants with misidentified ploidy in my garden may be zero or close to it.

The researchers who found 6% of registered daylilies with incorrect ploidies, had two hybridizers with more than one misidentified cultivar in their tested sample. It is known that the tetraploid registrations of one of those hybridizers were often incorrect. The other hybridizer had tried seed conversions. If those hybridizers are excluded from the sample then the proportion of plants with incorrect ploidies is 1%. As well, all the misidentified ploidies were plants that had been registered between 1981 and 1986. Presumably that is related to a time associated with an intense interest in producing new converted tetraploids.

I place much less confidence in the results of the research group that found 8% incorrect ploidies, primarily since I have a substantial number of the plants they tested and identified as having incorrect ploidies and here they behave as if their registered ploidies are correct. I assume there were some problems with their methods, particularly as in a test of one of the cultivars they identified as incorrect ploidy it was found to have the correct ploidy.

I am also going to introduce an unusual possibility. Diploid plants (any species) produce pollen with problems at high temperatures. The pollen can be dead but also it sometimes can be the incorrect ploidy (due to problems in development associated with the high temperatures). When that happens the pollen from a diploid can be the same ploidy as that from a tetraploid and work on tetraploids - usually at a low percentage. High temperatures do not necessarily affect diploids and tetraploids in the same way since for example the sizes of their cells, etc., are different. High temperatures may possibly cause diploid pollinations to fail more frequently than tetraploid pollinations.

Thanks for the historical background on conversion practices. For me, the range of percentage in possibly "wrong ploidy listed" daylilies of 1-8% serves a very helpful purpose in raising awareness that when there are no prior offspring, or a cross does not take, it may be worth trying a cultivar on others thought to be of a different ploidy, if the owner is interested. My small garden already holds 200 cultivars easily (so possibly 2-10 mis-ID'd), and many of the daylilies listed in earlier discussion were popular enough to be found in many gardens. Just helping people understand that there can be a range of avenues to explore and pursue when pods don't seem to be setting.

admmad said:I am also going to introduce an unusual possibility. Diploid plants (any species) produce pollen with problems at high temperatures. The pollen can be dead but also it sometimes can be the incorrect ploidy (due to problems in development associated with the high temperatures). When that happens the pollen from a diploid can be the same ploidy as that from a tetraploid and work on tetraploids - usually at a low percentage. High temperatures do not necessarily affect diploids and tetraploids in the same way since for example the sizes of their cells, etc., are different. High temperatures may possibly cause diploid pollinations to fail more frequently than tetraploid pollinations.

Though DLB crossed successfully with a number tets, I recall an almost visceral sense of changes in how pistils and pollen perform differently between full-sun and full-shade flower beds. It is almost like an inflammation first expands, and then heat dries, tissues and structures beginning around 90 degrees, and that also seems somehow connected to the instant stress response that happens to foliage (and ultimately, root systems) when temps hover over 100 in full sun.

So it's becoming quite interesting and intriguing to me to work a bit with extreme high temps, and rather than always time my dabbing in the 70-80 degree zone, I think I will have to indulge next season in doing more stuff at the far end of the daylily temperature bell-curve. I am also looking forward to re-doing dip-to-dip on Dixie Land Band, all in full shade and at a range of temps next season, to take a further look at what you describe, and perhaps get some dip offspring. I'll include Frankly Scarlet in this, as it has crossed both ways, more frequently with tets than dips, but perhaps it also reflects some impact from location and temperature differences.

Maurice, you are a treasure.

Thought I would revive this thread as it is the best place to show this daylily. The thread started out discussing oddities and this is apparently a reliable one. It will be a 2015 introduction by Nicole (Harry) DeVito. She gave a talk to my daylily club, North Alabama Daylily Society August 10th and showed us the flower. Apparently it always does something like this and she has had it in her garden for at least 5 years. Nicole said something to the effect that if she has had it that long and she still likes it, she should introduce it. I for one am very glad that she did. It will be a while though, before I can afford it, as I believe she said that the price will be around $400!

I could not find a picture on the web anywhere to link to, so I took a picture of her handout to post here.

It will be registered as 'Undefinable'

Wow!

Does not grab me and out of my budget too, but I think this could maybe open up a whole new area for daylilies. So many look so similar. We buy what we are drawn too and I am noticing how much a lot of mine have common colors or shapes. I have gotten boring! The right color combo like that could grab me though!

I like it, too! Different. Think of the possibilities for future children ....

She has another intro (a toothy one) which I think is out of that line and it is, I think, incredible. I realize it's not for everyone but I've never seen anything else like it.