Skipping over the much of the introduction and examining the first example (pg 14).
The parentage of Hyperion is stated as being:
aurantiaca X citrina -> Sir Michael Foster
aurantiaca x thunbergii -> Florham
Sir Michael Foster x Florham -> Hyperion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Hemerocallis Society(A.H. S.) registration database disagrees with this information and indicates:
Sir Michael Foster (Mueller, 1904) height 48in (122cm), season EM, Rebloom, Evergreen, Diploid, Fragrant, OYM1: Orange yellow medium self. (H. aurantiaca Major × H. citrina)
Florham (Herrington, 1899) height 48in (122cm), season EM, Rebloom, Evergreen, Diploid, Fragrant, YM1: Yellow medium self. (H. aurantiaca Major × H. thunbergii)
Stout's book provides information that agrees with the A.H.S. database and indicates that for Florham that information had been provided by its hybridizer. Muller, the hybridizer of Sir Michael Foster published its parentage in 1904 and I checked it. Stout and the A.H.S. are correct.
There is no discussion as to why the parentage was changed or evidence presented to support the changes.
The difference between H. aurantiaca and H. aurantiaca Major is important.
Stout examined both plants and published the findings. H. aurantiaca was found to be heterozygous for fulvous colouring in the flowers and evergreen habit of growth. H. aurantiaca Major was homozygous for absence of fulvous colouring and for the evergreen habit. The two plants had different flower colours. It is possible that the plant called H. aurantiaca was itself a hybrid while the plant called H. aurantiaca Major was a member of a species. Japanese daylily taxonomists have published that the species is Hemerocallis major and that daylily interspecific hybrids do exist in the wild.
H. aurantiaca was described as having orange coloured throat and of being tinged red on the petals and sepals outside of the throat. Thus it was a fulvous daylily. H. aurantiaca Major had no trace of fulvous (red) colouring in its flowers.
In flowers, the colour orange can be produced in at least three different ways.
1) by reddish-purple anthocyanin pigments alone
2) by high concentrations of yellowish carotenoid pigments
3) by orangey carotenoid pigments
Of course various combinations of the three methods above may be involved.
On the bottom of page 14 in footnote 3 we read that the results of the crosses that produced Hyperion "may imply that red is recessive and that yellow is dominant". But they do not. We read that there is "not adequate controlled set of data". However, A USDA plant geneticist, Toru Arisumi, studied the inheritance of red flower colour in daylilies and published his findings. Arisumi found that red is a dominant phenotype.
Lets go back and look at the correct parentage of the cross and flower colours:
H. aurantiaca Major (orange) x H. citrina (yellow) produced Sir Michael Foster (orange-yellow)
H.. aurantiaca Major (orange) x H. thunbergii (yellow) produced Florham (yellow)
Sir Michael Foster (orange yellow) x Florham (yellow) produced Hyperion (yellow)
Red is not involved. Had H. aurantiaca been the parent instead of H. aurantiaca Major then red (fulvous) would have been involved. There is no evidence that Major was not the parent. There is no reason to consider the suggestion that red may be recessive and yellow dominant.
Sir Michael Foster and Florham can be considered as F1s if aurantiaca Major was the parent but not if aurantiaca was the parent as it was itself probably a hybrid. It is by no means a 100.0% certainty that H. aurantiaca was a hybrid since species can be what is called polymorphic and have more than one flower colour or growth habit in the wild.
Hyperion should not be considered an F2. In plant breeding F2s are typically produced by self-pollinating the F1 plants. When they are produced by cross pollinations then the F1s that are crossed are siblings produced by the same parents. That is how we can get the expected Mendelian ratios.
Before one starts a scientific study one does an exhaustive literature search of what is known on the topic of interest. Before the Internet that meant library visits and interlibrary loans. Now nearly all the information is readily available through the computers on our desks and in our homes. All the information I have provided above was available on the Internet (usually freely) or rarely published on paper and easily available electronically.
This does not appear to be a case of some researchers interpreting observations in one way and others interpreting it in another way. I consider that my analysis leads to a lack of confidence.
