If it helps I got the plant from Valley of the Daylilies.

admmad said:Arisumi, a geneticist, did a large experiment trying dip/tet crosses.
He tried with 82 different diploids and 75 different tetraploid parents. There were 400 different diploid - tetraploid combinations.
The total number of pollinations was 1,607.
{...}
Of the 400 combinations of crosses only 24 produced any viable seedlings. Fifteen of those were tet x dip and nine were dip x tet.
Only four of the 24 combinations produced more than one seedling (three produced two seedlings and one produced three seedlings); they were from tet x dip crosses.

Maurice,

Did Arisumi record any information regarding the ploidy of the seedlings from these crosses? I remember hearing that technically, they're supposed to be triploids.

There was a tendency for the ability to successfully cross (tet x dip) to be inherited, as a large number of successful crosses involved certain cultivars in the ancestry of the parents.

I've seen a little of this myself with Ed Murray, but the problem with my experience is that prior to my acquisition of Ed Murray, a supposed tet conversion of it was in fairly wide circulation, and there seemed to be a lot of uncertainty as to whether or not any random piece of Ed Murray had been treated. I obtained mine from John Benz, and he said that he had one clump which came to him as "tet. Ed Murray" and an other which was supposed to be "diploid" Ed Murray, but that for him, they both behaved similarly when bred to tetraploids.

The clone I have exhibits no outward signs of conversion, but when I looked at the pollen under a microscope, I saw diploid-size grains, a lot of chaff, some tetraploid-size grains, and a smattering of extra-large grains, maybe 5%. Every few years, I pollinate most of the blooms on Ed Murray with tetraploid pollen, and usually I'll end up with one or two seeds, which, so far, have grown out to be plants which are easily fertile with known tetraploids. I don't see much pollen from my clone (many deformed/shriveled pollen sacs), but when it's available, it's reasonably fertile with tetraploids.

Registration data isn't infallible, however the entry for Thornbird in the NGA database shows 6 tetraploid offspring—some from a tet parent and some from a dip parent. Of these, I only have experience with Norman Lee Hennel, which is quite fertile both ways with tetraploids.

CaliFlowers said:
Did Arisumi record any information regarding the ploidy of the seedlings from these crosses? I remember hearing that technically, they're supposed to be triploids.

Yes, they were all triploids

I've seen a little of this myself with Ed Murray, but the problem with my experience is that prior to my acquisition of Ed Murray, a supposed tet conversion of it was in fairly wide circulation, and there seemed to be a lot of uncertainty as to whether or not any random piece of Ed Murray had been treated. I obtained mine from John Benz, and he said that he had one clump which came to him as "tet. Ed Murray" and an other which was supposed to be "diploid" Ed Murray, but that for him, they both behaved similarly when bred to tetraploids.

The clone I have exhibits no outward signs of conversion, but when I looked at the pollen under a microscope, I saw diploid-size grains, a lot of chaff, some tetraploid-size grains, and a smattering of extra-large grains, maybe 5%. Every few years, I pollinate most of the blooms on Ed Murray with tetraploid pollen, and usually I'll end up with one or two seeds, which, so far, have grown out to be plants which are easily fertile with known tetraploids. I don't see much pollen from my clone (many deformed/shriveled pollen sacs), but when it's available, it's reasonably fertile with tetraploids.

The story behind 'Ed Murray' is complicated and probably has much misinformation. Currently, it appears to be the only known diploid that crosses reasonably well with known tetraploids. Its identification as a diploid was by someone in Europe who looked at the squashes of root cells and counted more or less diploid chromosome numbers rather than tetraploid counts. So Ed Murray is considered to be the verified diploid that produces what are called "unreduced pollen" or "unreduced gametes". That is, it supposedly produces some pollen with 22 chromosomes instead of the diploid 11.

I currently am crossing every flower that blooms on my 'Ed Murray' with known tetraploids.

Registration data isn't infallible, however the entry for Thornbird in the NGA database shows 6 tetraploid offspring—some from a tet parent and some from a dip parent. Of these, I only have experience with Norman Lee Hennel, which is quite fertile both ways with tetraploids.

I am inclined to treat the information about the parentage of Thornbird with skepticism. For the cross to have succeeded then 'Little Grapette' would have to be another diploid that produced unreduced gametes. However, 'Little Grapette' is one of those small-flowered daylilies whose anthers are very close to its stigma in some of its flowers during the flowering season (my observations) and could likely have some self-compatibility (from H. minor ancestry possibly). I suspect that Thornbird's pod parent might be a tetraploid misidentified as 'Little Grapette' possibly 'Little Grape'. Or the supposed diploid 'Little Grapette' was actually a misidentified tet conversion of 'Little Grapette' or partial tet conversion sold as diploid. So I suspect that Thornbird is from tet Little Grapette x Ed Murray or from Little Grape x Ed Murray.

edited to add: Note the parentage of Little Grape:
Little Grape (Durio-D., 1980) height 18in (46cm), bloom 3.25in (8.3cm), season EM, Rebloom, Dormant, Tetraploid, Ruby, wine and grape with dark ruby red wine eyezone and yellow green throat. (sdlg × Tet. Little Grapette)

ediblelandscapingsc said:It only had 3 blooms the first was pollinated with Forbidden Fantasy the other 2 with forestlake ragamuffin

If there were only three flowers and all three were pollinated with pollen from tetraploid cultivars and all three took (producing apparently normal seeds) then I would almost guarantee that the plant used as the pod parent is a tetraploid. Or, the low probability alternative, 'Lavender Blush' is an important biological oddity.

apparently normal but smaller than most of my tet seeds. Most of my tets have had fat seeds these where nearly 2/3 - half the size of say my Forbidden Fantasy x Gram's dream cross but still look healthy just smaller.

admmad said:

If a grower has a diploid version of a cultivar and they also have the tetraploid version of the same cultivar then it is possible to check pollen sizes or various other cell sizes to determine whether the tetraploid version really is tetraploid. Most pollen develops from tissue layer 2 of the growing point. There are three tissue layers in the growing point. A very small fraction of pollen in daylilies develops from tissue layer 1 and none develops from tissue layer 3. So, if the pollen is approximately twice the volume of the diploid plant's pollen (or approximately 30% larger in any linear dimension) then layer 2 of the putative 'tetraploid' plant is confirmed as tetraploid.

However, if one simply has a plant of unknown ploidy then one cannot be certain whether it is diploid or tetraploid by examining pollen or guard cell sizes, etc. The reason is that for the general population of daylilies, diploid cell sizes are not completely separate from tetraploid cell sizes. The larger diploid cell sizes overlap the smaller tetraploid cell sizes.

Basically the only way to be certain a plant is tetraploid (derived from a tet x tet cross or a tet grown from seed) is to do a root squash and chromosome count microscopically and count 44 chromosomes in the cells (with the appropriate controls and internal standards, flow cytometry can provide a valid estimate that the plant has the appropriate amount of DNA to be a tetraploid).

Yikes, Maurice! Thank you for the explanation on pollen grain sizes versus ploidy. I'm afraid that flow cytometry is a bit beyond my capabilities!

Hope not already mentioned as I will have to read entire thread later.

Maurice
I noticed that LAVENDER MEMORIES is registered as having a pod parent which is a cross with itself. There may be too many ancestors in its parentage for your purpose. ??

Thank you bron but unfortunately the pedigree and registered information for 'Lavender Memories' is
Lavender Memories (Stamile, 1990) height 23in (58cm), bloom 5.5in (14.0cm), season EM, Evergreen, Tetraploid, Fragrant, Clear lavender self with green throat. ((Houdini × Tet. Lavender Memories) × (Prom Date × Tet. Lavender Dew))

There is a problem with this pedigree for Lavender Memories in that the registered cultivar is apparently present in its own ancestry. I expect that there is a typographical error and that the correct ancestry is (Houdini × Tet. Lavender Dew) × (Prom Date × Tet. Lavender Dew).

Unfortunately what I am looking for would need an ancestry such as (Houdini × Tet. Lavender Dew) × (Houdini × Tet. Lavender Dew) as long as both parents were actually the same plant and not simply siblings from the same cross.

I may go off-topic but why a self cross of one tet daylily is rare? Did I miss some post?

Thank you Maurice. I drew same to the attention of the AHS, saying it could not have been a parent of itself before it existed. However the President replied that the parent was the plant before it was registered and was an example of 'selfing'. I still thought it not logical, so she suggested I contact the hybridizer.

If you like I can try self pollination of some Tets. Getting up very early in the hot months here is the only way to get stuff done.

Last year I had lots of bee pods so I used the seeds to practice germinating them. I have been too busy clearing and digging new ground to dab pollen. But out of curiosity I will try selfing a vigorous unregistered plant that I have that which produced vigorous seedlings. They germinated in the fridge. When pollination occured there would have been only 2 other nearby plants blooming, one a Tet, one a Dip. It was called 'Ruben James', and looks a bit like FRANCOIS VERHAERT. I will ask the grower if she knows its parentage. She had hundreds of cultivars and has done lots of hybridising.

'RJ' got rust pretty badly, but is such a strong and long flowering plant that I will rip off all green parts (ROAGP) and replant it. That has worked well with others. Here we have a super long bloom season but also perfect conditions for rust.

bron said:Thank you Maurice. I drew same to the attention of the AHS, saying it could not have been a parent of itself before it existed. However the President replied that the parent was the plant before it was registered and was an example of 'selfing'. I still thought it not logical, so she suggested I contact the hybridizer.

You are welcome, and you are correct; it is not logically possible. I can have a plant x and I can self-pollinate that plant and produce some seeds. I can then take one of the seedlings and name it y. I cannot give the same name to the plant that I self-pollinated x and to its offspring y.

If you like I can try self pollination of some Tets.

Thank you for the kind offer, but it is not necessary as I can do the same here with the tets that are in bloom now. I am hoping that I can short-circuit the process by one generation of testing with information that may be provided by others who have already tried self-pollinations.

for the past 2 weeks about all I've been able to do self tet crosses because the blooms are getting to be less and less most of which have been on Forbidden Fantasy X Forbidden Fantasy I have about 7 pods now that are self tet crosses.
Terrence McGarty got back with me this morning saying he was out of town but would talk when he gets home. I can't wait to hear what he says.

cybersix said:I may go off-topic but why a self cross of one tet daylily is rare? Did I miss some post?

Self crosses (pollinations) are usually not made by daylily hybridizers. In diploids self-pollinations usually fail except for specific cultivars, even when the cultivars are both pod and pollen fertile in cross pollinations. In tetraploids I think that self-pollinations work more frequently but I have not collected sufficient data to know that with any reliability.
Not only do self-pollinations fail but when they do work the seedlings are usually poorer than those from cross-pollinations. In diploids the seedlings from self-pollinations are considered to suffer from extreme inbreeding depression. That will be less in tetraploids because inbreeding in tetraploids happens more slowly, but it also happens in tetraploids given more generations of inbreeding (self-pollinations).

ediblelandscapingsc said:for the past 2 weeks about all I've been able to do self tet crosses because the blooms are getting to be less and less most of which have been on Forbidden Fantasy X Forbidden Fantasy I have about 7 pods now that are self tet crosses.

Thank you for the information but unfortunately it will take some years before we can know whether the seeds/seedlings from those self-pollinations are viable and fertile. I am hoping to find some growers/hybridizers who have self-pollinated some (tet) flowers a few years ago and already have information about the fertility and viability of the seedlings produced.

Thanks Maurice. So I'd better toss the seeds Stella x Stella

cybersix said:Thanks Maurice. So I'd better toss the seeds Stella x Stella

No, of course not However, the plants may be smaller than Stella, have shorter scapes and have fewer buds, etc. And they will all be yellow-flowered. If you grow enough seedlings from self-pollinations you may be able to select some that are taller than Stella or that have more buds, etc but the odds are against it being easy.

@bron
I have Floyd Cove daylily catalogues that date from the 1990s. This is what Pat Stamile indicated was the parentage of his 'Lavender Memories' in the catalogue that introduced the plant.

Tet. T-738-B (Houdini x Tetra Yesterday Memories) x (Prom Date x Tetra Lavender Dew)

The AHS parentage information in the registration database for 'Lavender Memories' is probably a typographical error introduced at some point in the process - it is incorrect.

admmad said:
No, of course not However, the plants may be smaller than Stella, have shorter scapes and have fewer buds, etc. And they will all be yellow-flowered. If you grow enough seedlings from self-pollinations you may be able to select some that are taller than Stella or that have more buds, etc but the odds are against it being easy.

I think I will let the seeds go. I have other crosses that I'd like to see and poor space!

admmad said:

I am inclined to treat the information about the parentage of Thornbird with skepticism. For the cross to have succeeded then 'Little Grapette' would have to be another diploid that produced unreduced gametes. However, 'Little Grapette' is one of those small-flowered daylilies whose anthers are very close to its stigma in some of its flowers during the flowering season (my observations) and could likely have some self-compatibility (from H. minor ancestry possibly). I suspect that Thornbird's pod parent might be a tetraploid misidentified as 'Little Grapette' possibly 'Little Grape'. Or the supposed diploid 'Little Grapette' was actually a misidentified tet conversion of 'Little Grapette' or partial tet conversion sold as diploid. So I suspect that Thornbird is from tet Little Grapette x Ed Murray or from Little Grape x Ed Murray.

edited to add: Note the parentage of Little Grape:
Little Grape (Durio-D., 1980) height 18in (46cm), bloom 3.25in (8.3cm), season EM, Rebloom, Dormant, Tetraploid, Ruby, wine and grape with dark ruby red wine eyezone and yellow green throat. (sdlg × Tet. Little Grapette)

Both of those scenarios make sense. Nona Ford shared seedlings and other plant material with Jack Romine, a California hybridizer who was free and adept with colchicine. Jack treated many, many plants—mostly miniatures, (his focus was mini-tets) but a good number of pony and large flowers as well. Because of that, it's possible that Nona Ford had a treated piece of "Little Grapette". It was in Jack's garden that I saw "Norman Lee Hennel" in bloom when it was still under number, and it was very impressive. (and not as red as the image in the database) I don't recall ever examining the pollen of either Thornbird or NLH, but I wonder if it's possible that the occasional extra-extra large pollen grains I saw in Ed Murray pollen (and possibly passed down to its progeny?) could be what results in rare, but viable seeds when used with diploid pod parents? On the other hand, since Ed Murray can also breed as a normal diploid, there would be a lot of seedlings to evaluate for ploidy if it were used on diploid pod parents—enough to make it a daunting task unless it was a hybridizer's sole goal. Thornbird, being more "thoroughly tetraploid" (or is it?) shouldn't present that problem if used on dips. I just checked the AHS registration data, and what I found peculiar is that for such a widely known and grown, multi-award winning "diploid" daylily, Ed Murray has only two diploid registrations to its credit. The other 78 are tetraploids.

Edit: Re-checking the database, the Warrell cultivar, "Jupiter Light House" is registered as a diploid, yet if the pedigree is read according to accepted convention, the seed came from a pod on "Night Wings", a tetraploid. That leaves only one "true" diploid registration from Ed Murray, Smith's "Bangladesh". Sheesh...

admmad said:
I have Floyd Cove daylily catalogues that date from the 1990s. This is what Pat Stamile indicated was the parentage of his 'Lavender Memories' in the catalogue that introduced the plant.

Tet. T-738-B (Houdini x Tetra Yesterday Memories) x (Prom Date x Tetra Lavender Dew)

The AHS parentage information in the registration database for 'Lavender Memories' is probably a typographical error introduced at some point in the process - it is incorrect.

There are a lot of errors such as this in the AHS databases, and there, the request must be submitted by the registrant. Fortunately, the NGA moderators are not averse to correcting them if a correction request is submitted.