I’m trying to read it. lol. Its like reading another language most of the time. I did notice this tho that seems to go with what you guys quoted. Its in the conclusions section. So monoecious plants are really female?
“These data also address a long-standing question regarding monoecious chromosome structures assessed by Razumova et al. (Razumova et al. 2016). Monoecious varietals (C3 and Fedora) cluster together in Figure 1 and the whole genome shotgun data clearly demonstrates an XX chromosome structure for monocieous samples thus further verifying earlier cytogenetic assessments. This has been challenging to conclusively determine with genetic markers (MADC2 and SCAR) developed prior to any knowledge of a genomic reference. The pioneering primers described by Mandolino et al. are now known to have homology to many autosomal repeat structures in the genome (Mandolino 1999) and may lead to false positive or false negative results when applied across cannabis diversity. Primers with higher male specificity are more easily assessed with multiple genomes comprehensively sequenced.”
Yeah that’s basically what they’re saying. The monoecious(nanners on your girl) plants are all females. Breeding females with females may increase that tendency. And use of a proper male can select away from that, change flowering time, and trichome density.
This was also an interesting tidbit
Of particular relevance to recent hemp and cannabis legislation are the insights regarding why Type III hemp plants lacking a THCA synthase gene can still synthesize small amounts of THCA. Type III plants, lacking a functional THCAS gene but containing a functional CBDAS gene, frequently have a CBCAS gene cluster. This CBCAS gene cluster is not seen in all Type I plants (plants lacking a CBDAS gene but containing a THCAS gene). This CBCAS gene cluster shares the most sequence similarity with THCAS and CBDAS and may produce THCA as a byproduct. Breeding for plants that contain the natural CBCAS deletion in the population will also select for plants lacking the linked pathogen-resistant genes (NIP1, PIP1, NPF3, RMT1). Breeding for less than 0.3% THCA production may enrich for pathogen susceptibility and higher patient fungal exposure.
I’d say that depends. I pollenated a Northern Lights auto, a pair of Blueberry Herer autos, and a Trop Poison F2 auto. I wanted the purple from the BC to transfer over, and keep the buzz of the NL, BJH and TPF2…
TPF2 originally was purple. Seeds from that cross make either almost black plants, or a green pheno with purple buds.
NL was originally lime green, not a hint of purple. Seeds from that cross make lavender buds 80% of the time or greater.
BJH was medium green, and again, seeds from that cross now have purple in their buds.
All three Moms had different growth patterns, and the crosses kept moms growth patterns (NL is taller christmas tree like, BJH was short but fat, etc).
Moms may pass on most of the traits, but pollen donors can certainly pass some on too.
And that Black Cream pollen was fem / auto from a fem BC I reversed with eXe…
I think holyangel is correct in his dominant/recessive points…
Tell you what… I’m working on an orange skunk side project as we speak. (Also a melon lifesaver x skunk, both ways)
Skunk A x orange 1
Skunk A x orange 10
Orange 1 x skunk A
Orange 10 x skunk A
Both lines are inbred. I heard orange is dominant and is best used as the male side of a cross. And skunk… well… first tests seem to indicate it’s dominant within its line.
I’m planting an equal amount of each outside this season, I’ll gladly share the data with you good sir
Also worthy of mention - I’m planting s1’s from each cuts in an attempt to map their genes, dominant/recessive/co-dominant/etc. In theory this should answer many questions at once
!
…