Thanks @Cactus, that video was well done.
I’m still a little hazy on the notion that sister clones will have nearly identical genomes, like two branches on the same tree. Given that how much meiosis variation can occur if both sets are “nearly identical” in the first place?
My “subject” plant has been “smoothed” for a few gens (supposedly), so it should be pretty homo…
What am I missing here?
Nice write up and the link is a good source of simple math to work out what your traits are after mapping them out.
But codominant traits can show up in selfed cultivars.
Pz 
I could definitely be wrong on the terminology there but I’m pretty sure the idea remains.
There are some traits you will not see, or will see significantly less, in a self or backcross; that you would see a lot more of in a sibling mating.
Copy dna from one cell to another is a critical step and it got the greatest potential of something goes wrong. So the cell have a few mechanics to decrease the chance. Even though these mechanics function properly, the dna can still be mutated(changed). Over the years these mutations can accumulate into a large change of the genetic material and your future clones will carry this mutation. Even epigenetics can change the dna of the specimen to a degree of being a “new” cultivar and you can’t change it back.
Pz
Never heard that inbreeding will remove codominant or incomplete dominant traits. Can’t wrap my head around why this would be this way since the genes are there and won’t disappear into thin air.
Pz
Yep, I get that, but aren’t both of those sources of variation minor in the grand scheme?
If both gametes are from “identical” clones from a previously “smoothed” cultivar, how much of the normal meiosis mixing should be expected?
Happy New Year
I wonder about soma clonal variation? The genetic changes are cytogenetic abnormalities and alterations to specific sequences of DNA; epigenetic changes are alterations of gene expression without changes to DNA sequences. Somaclonal variation, independent from the mechanisms involved, has been reported for a number of plant species. The occurrence of somaclonal variation in tissue culture has a negative effect on the rapid production of clonal plants of elite cultivars, but may promote the production of novel horticultural crop genotypes.
Best topic discussion ever! You all are brilliant. Took 4 days to find and a day to read. This entire thread has answered every question I had. Y’all have out done yourselves 
Population size and genetic loss
ψt=Pnf,t Pnf,t−1 =(1−1 /2Nt)
Pop size and breeding three successive generations with a population size of N= 262
Ψ= (1-1/262x2)(1-1/262x2)(1-1/262x2) = 0.9940 loss of 0.005 or 0.5% genetic loss
N= 30
(1-1/2x30)(1-1/2x30)(1-1/2x30) = 0.951
Or loss of 5% of genetics variance
1-1/2xNe (7.3)
It is generally desired that Ne is not less than about 30 to 50: for Ne=30, Equation (7.3) yields ψ =0.9833; for Ne =50 it yields ψ =0.99. An effective population size of less than 30 plants is considered too small: e.g. Ne =10 yields ψ =0.95. These minimal values for Ne are primarily based on the consideration that the accumulated reduction of Pnf, due to continued maintenance of a population with a small population size, should be restricted.
This I think is what Tom is getting at. So small pops go down hill faster and etc…Once it is gone it is gone!
Good post!
“t” is a generational counter?
This indirectly reinforces my opinion that we need to establish multiple ‘sibling lines’ initially.
There is an underlying connection to the concept of “vigor” as well.
Cheers
G
That is number of initial population.
50 individuals is
(1-1/(2 x 50)) = 0.99 of total genome left or loss of 1%. That is why the population variance is reduced and should use as large a population to conserve genetic variability. That is what @TomHill I think eludes to but doesn’t want to open that can of worms. I am doing it because I thought that it would shed some light on what he has been saying for a long time.
Yeah that angle is correct. However, it is key to understand most maths ciphered on the matter involve a fixed population, one that does not insure male #29 pollinates female #162 at the other end of the plot. Via realistic modern tech, you can insure that does in fact happen - greatly skewing the maths in your favor.
It’s the valuable section of the conversation that has been avoided.
Different authors will use different symbols. They should make them clear at first use. If that is Bos and Caligari I believe yes. They’ll use t to denote generations of panmictic reproduction, eg all plants in the population in, with no directional selection.
Thanks @TomHill for clearing this up, just throwing the numbers around with math looking for results. I will pay more attention @Gpaw, kinda picking this stuff up and not paying attention to the details; no excuse.
“ Ψ= (1-1/262x2)(1-1/262x2)(1-1/262x2) = 0.9940 loss of 0.005 or 0.5% genetic loss”
Would t= 4-1? Just thinking that used three generations with that number but not sure @Gpaw ?
Oh I am super guilty of brushing over the maths 
Allard does an excellent job of ranking selection methods by intensity without such deep maths. But yeah if that’s out of B&C’s selection methods I do believe it is the correct denotation of symbol.
Then looking at this, one would deduce that the next step maybe would be the phenomena called linkage, mapping and Morgans. 50% rule. Not ready for anything for still a little hazy but appreciate your direction. Very impressed with what you botanist were able to see, thanks. You are still funny as hell makes this process fun!
Brother when you get into epistasis may as well chuck the maths out the window and pick up your fly rod anytime you see a bunch of underlined symbols we have ventured into constant variable biometrical genetic territory.
Yea but I will go out in the deep end, got to get out of kiddy pool and go for it. Hell bent for leather 
