F1 x P1 is the demonstrative manner to explain it, not the only way to make a BX, you’re pushing to far buddy ^^
Most of notations are inherited from BCID but cannabis have it’s own BBCH too; while we are debating on the sex of the angels … the industry is working. And i’m not even starting to talk about the hemp industry, that stopped to play around since centuries now.
Yes you are right…
(F1 x p1) x p1 is also a backcross, so is ((f1 x p1) x p1) x p1 and so on 
But hey… I’m not trying to one up you or nothing… just going by how other plants, animals and organisms are annoted… maybe I’m missing something. I’m just a dude with a watering can and I’m willing to learn 
I like incross in regards to f2 as the descriptor. Mostly because most cannabis share common ancestors within 5 generations. Now if you cross a “polyhybrid” (don’t love this term either) with a Landrace does that give you true f1 progeny as long as the Landrace doesn’t show up in the ancestry. 1 pheno or expression of a particular Landrace shouldn’t count for the entire spectrum.
Vulgarizing a cascading subject is a pain anyway lol
On my side i just try to draw some safe perimeters to avoid deleterious leads to failures. My concern is to have more people making seeds and that are lasting. Breeding is a long run. We need competitive fresh flesh more than ever, no more recyclers/scavengers.
Refreshing buddy. True fucking subject.
Considering the limited block that structure the offer, the choice of the line you work and their tracking is now essential to dodge bullets.
Like crossing a JH and a NL5H by example. Even if the two lines output two differents buds, genetically it’s enough close to be considered as a NL5H BX ^^ It’s my fear for the next round by the way, i want to keep these two variations distanced. I love both individually.
Well that’s something I can agree to hah
Don’t rush things, make it good and spread your best efforts 
Yeah, ‘P1’ = parent. A parental cultivar of the sired line. Not a relative. Otherwise it’d be f1 x f1
Yes, that’s what I meant when I typed it 
well, that was fun …
thank you for that, fellas.
my brain just got a bit heavier 
You don’t focus on the right spot, it’s a mechanism : the mitosis and meiosis that “decide” this.
So vulgarized and simplified, yes the code of the plant is different that the code effectively used.
Exactly like the female’s flowers, there is points of maturity.
You’re not preserving anything this way, you’re leveraging the adaptation of the line to your context and manners. Why using males that will change the initial profile of the weed ? ^^
If this is a reliable male, you will get the same spectrum of expressions. Now if you torture him badly and keep it vegging ten years as bonsaï, the first seeds will be quite different that the seeds made with the zombie lol
Simply in finding the “GPS location” of the sequence used by the plant to produce the expression. The Loci. But we are talking about DNA engineering, not farming.
I see. This is a cascading equation that can’t be really vulgarized or simplified. Because highly contextual to what is growing and how, to the ambivalent phenotypic level at loci scale (fully relative in term of dominance). I can just throw some leads to better expose the equation, this discussion have to be ultra-specialized on a given work. We enter in lead breeding documents domain, not so much in generalist tricks with this exact subject.
Let’s say you collect the pollen of one male and have under the nose a nice yellow powder constituted by thick grains of fresh pollen.
Inside this unique source of pollen, chaos is already there. Grains are not equals, some will have more chance to reach the ovula than others, some will be less resistant than others and even the calibration of the grain and their tubes are not equal.
Now each time a fertile grain reach a pistil and grow its tube inside to the ovula, an unique seed is created in term of genetical code (it’s why i said it’s about the mechanism more than the initial gamete “content”).
The stats you’re asking can only be mapped then provided by the expertise on the strains used. There is no generic rule saying that a given % will restrict or improve your selective work.
But you can cheat the game, and restrict drastically the potential of expression before making your pairings, so driving the chaos in your favor.
The equation is not partial, it’s a combo from the start to the end. A specific male will not produce a specific restricted output, it’s the meeting of both side. Males have the tendency to be more dominating in cannabis genetically just because their content is richer than females. It’s how fems are possible by the way.
I got it, and gave you the real answer.
Not the one of a stoner reading this mathematical demonstration as a breeding tool, but as Bateson asked to a mathematician partner : something ridiculously absolute to understand a dynamic on scales impossible to grow and in conditions impossible to give (without any epigenetic factor).
It pass but we are talking about plant’s nurturing here, not breeding. Same with the sole production of seeds, if you fuck up the regime of the females seeded … seeds are not iphone apps but are representing the cares you give to the plants in real time.
The simple fact to have a low germination rate (for whatever reason) on a batch can change drastically the genotype profile quite fast.