Reading the first paper, they seem to associate hermaphrodism with nanners or clusters thereof but don’t mention male organs until the bit about monoceous plants where plants come on a spectrum from strongly pistillate to strongly staminate.
Regarding sex det on a hormonal level, it’s possible hermies are suffering from n hormone efficient/n hormone inefficient genes where they’d overreact or underreact to cause imbalances.
I was reading a chemdog thread recently where someone mentioned finding a male in a pack of chem91 s1. That ‘male’ was used on the cut and seeds came out regs. A pure chemdog sire line.
Made me think of cookieboy, the male found by chunkypigs out of a cookie s1 I think, went on to make strong babies. Idk if his lines with it came out regs, if someone could confirm that…
Same happened with a few lines actually.
My Interest comes from a seed run I did recently where I got 1 ‘male’ (all pods/no pistils) out of 140 plants, and wondering if I won the lotto or if I created a mess.
Yeah I’ve seen more than a dozen full blown males out of those Chem91 S1’s. Makes me think that was purely pollen contamination.
IDK anything about that cookieboy male. Though, If he produced reg seeds, it was again, contamination. The papers say they got genetically females from female herm pollen…
I mean… Generally the only way you’re getting male plants in S1 seeds is if the parent had a Y. If you S1 a male you get reg seeds in a 70/30 ratio. So unless that male showed 100% female… from some hormone issue… I’d be hard-pressed to believe it until we get more genetic data and testing done.
This is where I get confused…LOL
I understand the concept but not much else…
This seems to suggest that a monecious plant would have been developed from mutants.
The way I understood it was…
Unisex plants are normal and stable plants are mutants.
If I am wrong please help me to understand the error in my ways.
Could a hormone treatment be used to create a mutant that is Monecious?
Or would one need a mutagen to make a stable plant.
I am pretty sure GA/Gibb is a known mutagen and why it is seldom used to reverse plants.
Maybe gene mutation is what we really need.
Just spitballing here, you big thinkers are stetting the pace, I am just running along side to see what I find useful.
Monoecious/herms are the mutants and true females/males are the normal plants. Cannabis is naturally dioecious and produces separate male and female plants with basically no herms. Any “naturally” herming landrace was touched by man.
I’d think you’d need a mutagen, like colchicine. And that already has widespread evidence of use in cannabis from at least decades ago if not prior.
Yeah instead it’s breeding fucked up female plants imo. 50% Normal ethylene producing ‘true’ females, and the other half showing varying amounts of herm to faux-male from lack of ethylene production but still genetically females. I think I’d rather reverse another true female than to use one with completely broken ethylene production
There is bunch of chromato results available on most of hyped cuts, and most of them are known to don’t be specially hard to trigger in herms. With some hours/days in front of you, you can be very surprised i guess by the pattern they all have in term of ethylen rate.
Well what if the male female sex be controlled through epistatic processes? @shag pulled this from the other thread. Marked it up, found it to be informative.
from the link… These results indicate that environmental sex reversal can override sexual fate determined by genetic factors through epigenetic regulation.
