magnolialover said:What a delightful day. I was honored to wear an apron beside her. What lily dreams are made of...
Yeah! It's like that day in Iowa: I sat with Judith on the tour bus and practically had her all to myself!
And you remind me of some more wisdom she imparted at the dinner yesterday...
We were talking about styles and pollenation with incompatible pollen. For instance, L. concolor styles are very short, so its pollen would only need to grow a short tube down the style to do its job. And therefore, I reasoned, the pollen likely doesn't have the propensity to grow long pollen tubes because it would never need it. I thought this was why some hybridizers cut the receptor styles short, so the male gamete from a naturally short style species could get to the egg with a short pollen tube, even though the pod parent naturally has long styles.
Not so!
My theory, that different species pollens have varying propensities to grow different length pollen tubes, is rubbish. (Judith didn't say it that way, of course.) The problem of pollen tube growth (if there is one), is again one of incompatibility, but between the pollen and the style itself. A pollen tube is not programmed genetically to need to only grow a certain length. Judith said that if the pollen and style are compatible, the tube will keep on growing and growing to its destination, whether or not the pollen parent species has a short or long style.
She has watched and studied pollen tube growth under different circumstances many times under the microscope. (Would we ever think differently of her?)
So, while the ultimate length of an incompatible pollen tube might vary depending on multiple factors, the "cut a style in half" practice is only guesstimated conjecture. If you really want the best chance of getting the job done, cut the style
really short.
cutting and pasting this into the hybridizing sticky, too.
