Maurice,
Once again, thank you very much for setting all that forth so clearly. I have very little science background, but after Googling a number of the terms you used, and reading your post several times, I think I get at least the big points.
So FCM, by measuring DNA, which bears some, but not a perfect/constant, relationship to chromosome count, offers a reasonable guess of chromosome count, and this is of some value because FCM is easier and faster than the most accurate method, which is counting chromosomes.
The trade-off is ease for accuracy.
When you say:
"If all 11 sets aligned as two pairs then tetraploids would be equally as fertile as diploids (more or less) and there would be no problems as long as they always aligned in that pattern. But they don't and there is nothing to make them do so in new tetraploids"
does that mean there is something that would make them align properly in OLD tetraploids? And if so, would that just be from careful selection of the most fertile conversions, or is there some tendency for them to 'learn' to align better over time (successive generations)?
Rob
