Post a reply

Image
Nov 7, 2019 7:59 AM CST
Thread OP
Name: Maurice
Grey Highlands, Ontario (Zone 5a)
@bobjax
An important tip for me. Thanks!

You're welcome.

Most of my crosses this year were with a specific dormant diploid which I crossed with EVs and SEVs with the purpose of bringing over some of the characteristics of the dormant into a new diploid that is EV or minimally a SEV...


Should be interesting, depending on the details that you record for each seedling Smiling

Qualifiers are that Stout was identifying the growth habit of the daylilies himself so he did not have the problem of different hybridizers defining and identifying growth habits differently. He was using species and he made many of his crosses between species. He identified the growth habits in a location where winters are different than Florida. This last qualifier is likely to be important. As an example, Stout wrote " For certain members of the species H. fulva a considerable portion of the foliage remains quite green until much frozen during winter. Of these, the Chengtu Daylily appears to be almost evergreen, or at least semi-evergreen, at New York. But Mr. John Watkins has reported by letter to the writer that at Gainesville, Florida, this particular daylily is dormant with all its foliage dead for a "very short rest" "

Note, Watkins was at the University of Florida.

My interpretation is that in New York 'Chengtu' is dormant (it sets a bud) but it has mature or nearly mature green leaves when winter arrives and those leaves remain green during winter (perhaps as they would do in a refrigerator). In Florida it sets a bud but the leaves have time to mature completely and to senesce/age, yellow and die completely.

Dormancy relates to whether buds are formed and their state - it is a description of the growth habit of a plant. The alternative is non-dormant or evergrowing.

Evergreen relates to the leaves - it is a description of the foliage habit of a plant. The alternative is deciduous (or a variant of equivalent to deciduous).

As indicated earlier, it is not unusual for the term "evergreen" to be used when "evergrowing" is appropriate.
Image
Nov 7, 2019 9:00 AM CST
Name: Bob
Northeast Florida (Zone 9a)
admmad said:@bobjax
He was using species and he made many of his crosses between species.


If I recall correctly the only species that is an evergreen is Aurantiaca (zone 5-9), which I tried to locate and buy, but could not find. If that is what he was using, then even with the voluminous cross-breeding between hybrids potentially mixing species genes, for an evergreen to still emerge certainly reflects on the dominance of Aurantiaca genes. Only Fulva has a wider growing zone, 3-10. The whole concept that when you move to a tet it diminishes the dominance is interesting.

Incidentally, I thought I hit the jackpot a couple of times with species growers who had Aurantiaca , but when I contacted them they all appeared to be retired. If you ever run across anyone who has Aurantiaca , please let me know. Thanks!
Image
Nov 7, 2019 10:18 AM CST
Thread OP
Name: Maurice
Grey Highlands, Ontario (Zone 5a)
@bobjax
If I recall correctly the only species that is an evergreen is Aurantiaca (zone 5-9), which I tried to locate and buy, but could not find.


Unfortunately, Stout determined that aurantiaca was most likely not a plant of a species but instead a plant of an interspecific hybrid. He thought that H. aurantiaca var major was the likely species. Researchers have since collected what they felt was that evergreen species and have designated it as H. major.

Stout had several plants of collected species that were evergreen in his growing conditions.

The whole concept that when you move to a tet it diminishes the dominance is interesting.


The "dominance" and "recessive" descriptions are not descriptions of genes (or alleles) but the descriptions of phenotypes - the characteristics we associate with a genetic difference. A gene can affect many different characteristics simultaneously and its effects on some of those characteristics may be "dominant" while its effects on other characteristics are simultaneously "recessive". Meaning that the genes are not actually dominant or recessive - it is the phenotypes that may act as if they are. If we take the same characteristic and measure it in a different way then whether the genetic effects are dominant or recessive or additive may change. As an example take a statement (not applied to daylilies) such as red flower colour is dominant to white flower colour. The seedlings from a cross of a (true breeding - homozygous) red flowered plant with a (true breeding - homozygous) white flowered plant will produce seedlings that all have red flowers. By definition for complete dominance they should be identical to the red flowered parent in colour. And they may well be when we look at them solely with our unaided vision. However the gene for red flower colour may be the gene that is the last step in the anthocyanin pigment pathway and is responsible for the pigment cyanidin. If we measure the actual amount of cyanidin in the seedling flowers we may find that it is not the same amount as that in the red flowered parent. The red flowered parent might have say 50 units of cyanidin, the white parent might have 0 units and the red flowered F1 seedlings might have say 35 units of cyanidin. To our unaided eyes 35 units is identical to 50 units. Similar results are common. Now when we move that to a tetraploid version we have five genotypes RRRR (red flowered parent) RRRr RRrr (similar to the diploid Rr) rRRR and rrrr (white flowered parent). We have two new genotypes and the situation is often similar to the following RRRR has 50 units of the pigment, RRRr has 42.5 units, RRrr has 35 units Rrrr has 27.5 units and rrrr has 0 units. Now to our unaided eyes we can distinguish Rrrr from RRRR, etc. Because cell volumes have changed in the tetraploid we may actually be able to distinguish all the genotypes.

Note, the original F1 seedlings might have 25 units of the pigment and yet be indistinguishable to our naked eyes from the red flowered parent with 50 units. In which case the apparent dominance is imaginary as far as the actual pigment amounts and the pigment amounts are a characteristic that is much closer to the actual gene function than is our visual determination of flower colour. At the pigment level (that is at a level that is nearer to the actual gene function), even in a diploid a genetic effect that we classify as dominant/recessive may actually be closer to additive. When diploids are converted to tetraploids those apparent dominant-recessive relationships become visibly graded differences.

Incidentally, I thought I hit the jackpot a couple of times with species growers who had Aurantiaca , but when I contacted them they all appeared to be retired. If you ever run across anyone who has Aurantiaca , please let me know. Thanks!


You might want to try to find someone who can collect an original plant of H. major
Image
Nov 7, 2019 10:46 AM CST
Name: Sue
Vermont (Zone 5a)
Daylilies Dog Lover Hybridizer Canning and food preservation Garden Procrastinator Seed Starter
Plant and/or Seed Trader Region: Vermont
Thank you Maurice, this increases my understanding enormously.
Suevt on the LA
Image
Nov 7, 2019 11:30 AM CST
Name: Bob
Northeast Florida (Zone 9a)
Note the parents here:

Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Queen of May')

And the

Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Flava Major')

Yet H. aurantiaca continues to be listed a species.

I certainly would settle, or be honored to have, Queen of May,

which I may have just found (below) and if this is the original (which it appears to be after speaking with River Bend), it might be as close to either I can get.

http://riverbendgardens.net/da...

Update: I just chatted with the remarkable lady from River Bend. They bought the daylily farm about 20 years ago and now might also be retiring soon. She doesn't ship to the US. Interesting story about what hoops they have to go through to ship to the US. She will check to see if Queen of May is still growing (after the snow melts). But I might never be able to get it.
Last edited by bobjax Nov 7, 2019 11:57 AM Icon for preview
Image
Nov 7, 2019 12:13 PM CST
Thread OP
Name: Maurice
Grey Highlands, Ontario (Zone 5a)
@bobjax
Yet H. aurantiaca continues to be listed a species.

Not in the least bit surprising. Taxonomists can be notoriously conservative, as perhaps daylily growers can be also Sighing!
Image
Nov 7, 2019 12:17 PM CST
Thread OP
Name: Maurice
Grey Highlands, Ontario (Zone 5a)
@bobjax
I would take with a large "grain" of salt that anyone is growing the original H. aurantiaca or H. aurantiaca var major . Some years ago I contacted Kew Gardens to see if they could verify that the plants that they had were actually the same ones as were originally described (ie provide valid provenance details). They could not.
Image
Nov 7, 2019 1:39 PM CST
Name: Bob
Northeast Florida (Zone 9a)
admmad said:@bobjax
I would take with a large "grain" of salt that anyone is growing the original H. aurantiaca or H. aurantiaca var major . Some years ago I contacted Kew Gardens to see if they could verify that the plants that they had were actually the same ones as were originally described (ie provide valid provenance details). They could not.


All these important plants, so many lost.

Thank you for the genetics explanation, it certainly helped a great deal.

You must first create a username and login before you can reply to this thread.
  • Started by: admmad
  • Replies: 27, views: 1,261
Member Login:

( No account? Join now! )

Today's site banner is by Natalie and is called "Clematis (Clematis x jackmanii)"

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.