Cannabis has a diploid genome (2n = 20) consisting of nine autosomes and a pair of sex chromosomes (X and Y) (Braich et al ., 2019; McKernan et al ., 2020)
More practical to quote directly, your quote.
We can have a funky debate on how useful or useless are autosomal traits to improve practically the final product, the smoke absolutely linked with female’s qualities. But thanks for the reminder, cannabis is 2n ^^ Or not, depend also on the case contextualized.
Yes Y chromosome?? Is larger than X which makes sense so what is your thinking @Fuel?
Just scratching the surface for the fun in waiting your germination. You have a date in mind ?
You are funny kinda like the fact you are all over the place but none in particular. Yeah everything is in limbo for seed run is underway with pollen starting to fly. Yes I think that’s a good idea. Really have no use for them other than if are they viable?
Kind of ^^ I try to keep the mind busy.
I missed one episode, i thought there were the seeds you shown in the rolling tray ?
But just the fact that they are Thaï male’s seeds make them cool as fuck at least ^^ Who know, maybe you’re the new DJ short ! Let’s be engaging a bit over all of this !
the “estimated” haploid genome size for male Cannabis sativa plants is 843 Mb, while for female plants it is 818 Mb. This suggests that male plants have a slightly larger haploid genome size compared to female plants.
Differences in genome size between male and female plants could be influenced by various factors, including the composition of sex chromosomes, gene content, and regulatory elements involved in sex determination and reproductive development. “Further research” would be needed to explore the genetic basis and functional implications of these differences in genome size between male and female Cannabis sativa plants.
So, you sincerely think that cannabis work like humans at the chromosome level : the female carrying the genotype in term of weight.
Yes they are very similar to what I have learned via my own studies. Yet, Regarding genome size differences between male and female Cannabis sativa plants, this could be due to various factors, including differences in gene content, repetitive DNA elements, and sex chromosome composition. However, it’s essential to interpret these differences cautiously and consider additional research to understand their biological significance fully… (Further research) is needed to elucidate the specifics of sex determination in Cannabis sativa.
In reading the first sentence i was full of hope to have a conversation that lead somewhere then … cold shower again ^^ That’s your style isn’t it ? ^^
Is the plant trying to tell us something?: Overbreeding, or excessive cultivation and selection for specific traits, can also contribute to the extinction of plant species, albeit indirectly. When humans selectively breed plants for desirable traits such as high yield, disease resistance, or aesthetic appeal, they may inadvertently reduce the genetic diversity of plant populations.
All the fucking time, but we don’t live enough long to get the whole message.
Still, we have bodybuilded wheat, cow that produce enough milk and even portative wolves that look like shit ^^
Well, at the moment you have to make evolve a genotype for a specific use on which it don’t perform well initially… i think it’s not an abuse to say that you voluntarily, and directly, extinguish a portion of a line in favor of a new one. I’m crystal clear on this point, i don’t take my closet for a planet ^^
Not inadvertently, on purpose. Reducing the diversity is the pivot point of the stability. You can’t welcome all agents of the chaos and in the same time to increase drastically the averages, you need to narrow on the best specimens for the use aimed.
“Not inadvertently, on purpose”: This suggests that reducing genetic diversity is a deliberate and intentional action rather than an unintended consequence. While selective breeding may indeed be purposeful, deliberately reducing diversity can have long-term implications for the resilience and adaptability of plant populations.
“Reducing the diversity is the pivot point of the stability”: This implies that reducing genetic diversity is essential for maintaining stability within plant populations. However, research indicates that genetic diversity is actually crucial for resilience and adaptability. Diverse populations are better able to withstand environmental changes and challenges, whereas homogeneous populations may be more vulnerable to threats such as pests, diseases, and climate variations.
“You can’t welcome all agents of the chaos and in the same time to increase drastically the averages”: This suggests that increasing genetic diversity would lead to chaos and reduce overall average traits. However, genetic diversity encompasses a range of traits and variations, which can actually enhance the overall health and adaptability of plant populations. While selective breeding aims to improve specific traits, it’s important to balance this with the need to maintain genetic diversity to ensure long-term stability and resilience.
“You need to narrow on the best specimens for the use aimed”: This implies that focusing on a narrow set of traits or individuals is necessary for achieving specific goals. While selective breeding does involve identifying and propagating individuals with desirable traits, it’s important to consider the broader genetic context and potential consequences of narrowing genetic diversity. Maintaining genetic diversity allows for flexibility and resilience in the face of changing environmental conditions and evolving challenges.
Seriously? You think cannabis plants are pulling a “copycat” move on humans at the chromosome level? That’s like saying a potato is trying to pass itself off as a French fry! Sure, they both have chromosomes, but weed ain’t sitting around worrying about fitting into skinny genes, I mean, jeans! And the idea of females carrying all the genetic baggage? That’s like saying the drummer carries the whole band while the lead singer takes all the credit – it’s a team effort, chromosomes and all!
You are really shooting around on purpose with my answers lol But it’s cool, it permit more development and it’s stimulating.
To loop on dog’s breeding, not all lines are equals. Some are high maintenance, others not. It don’t really belong to a binary conflict, but more on cascading factors : level of pressure, goals of the said pressure, skills et practices (bad or good), level of inbreeding, maintenance of the overall line (highly regulated to be LOFed or not) … but also the inherent weakness and advantages of the line itself.
I’m not against the love of the old ferals stuff, the return of rustic vintage lines (that stay worked as fuck) etc… , it’s just that i can’t intellectually ignore all the ballistic done during the whole history of the humanity when i cut this juicy steak in my plate.
And it’s totally possible to mitigate the pressure, sharing the work between the genetic maintenance of the lines and the goals to reach. It just take more time and depth than a one-shot quantitative selection on one single trait, like we see often with cannabis.
Good interpretation of my point of view. Accurate.
I can play too, and respectfully. In reading between the lines, you’re looking like to be this kind of person that think that humanity is all wrong on this matter since we invented the agronomy. Philosophically, it’s something that i can respect. But i don’t share this kind of point of view, i see the things much more mixed and inherent to their own contexts. Bad or not.
To ignore that we know also how to breed for resistances and acclimatization is a bit too much on the bad faith side of the force dude. I’m including this necessary layer of breeding inside what i’m calling the genetic maintenance. And over my examples to make the subject less arid and “ass tight”, i’m quite strict on the valley that exist on the subject between the vegetal and the animal reign. And I’m sincerely disliking any form of anthropomorphism with cannabis ^^
Now, if conceptually i’m not against the tension between diversity VS inbreeding, i never forget that initially i’m talking about cannabis in the conversation : it don’t have legs. At most, there is an exchange with fauna as vehicle but not enough massive to speak about a genetic leverage that can be compared with the said fauna.
We can talk about Darwin and the Galapagos island, the love of Bateson for the freaks etc … and the role of mutations in the said adaptation.
It’s a cascading subject anyway.
That’s my point yes. Past a certain degree of accuracy, the injection of specimens generating unstability hit the grade maintained.
And i’m not even speaking about the previous mapping of the selections, that have to be done again. So I’m not even purely practical in this consideration; in this case my words will be much more radicals ^^
I don’t disagree at all with this, and on what i suppose to be your whole perspective to prone a constant heterosis underneath, either.
Just, inbreeding isn’t only breeding sisters with brothers. There is a part also of genetic maintenance that imply parallel lines and various strategy of “fake diversity”. Even “fake heterosis” that can’t be totally ignored like a breeze. It’s not that binary.
I disagree with this faithful one. The case of lines naturally extinct that are not related with an external pressure other that the environmental ones exist. You even quote it in your sentence, a simple mutation of a direct predator can change the fate of one strain.
Better, in the absolute yes. But in practice, mother nature roll more the dices than this.
You can’t really talk about breeding if you don’t map retrospectively the traits you try to improve in real time. And it imply as well the health of the line worked.
Even to know if something wrong or bad happens in the acclimatization : rate of fertility, vigor efficiency (not only favoring mutations) … and a bunch of cascading leverages that together, represent a a genetic ecosystem to take in count.
It’s totally why the “casual reversing” is openly my nemesis. We are totally synchrone on this point. If this discussion is not just a Freudian one off course (gently taunting) ^^
Not if you don’t really know what you’re injecting. Not all blends improve mechanically the sum of the two parts, it can be deleterious too.
The strict reverse, specially with this manner to see similarities with the genetic role of females.
It was your point previously and the firestarter of this discussion, not mine.
Keep it civilized and not dupe, and you can be suprised how progressively far can go this conversation ^^ I’ve time to kill lastly, but it will not last.
It’s becoming a contest of bad faith ^^
It’s more about it, to stay pedagogic and not pedant at a time. The inherent constraints of a vegetal specimen make any comparison with the animal reign constraint quite outrageous.
Now if it’s all about talking about the sex of angels hidden in contradictory pseudo-scientific name dropping, i’m done with this discussion.
Funny how the kernels are all different colored. I bet I know why that is happening; bet it is happening to the ones that are all yellow just don’t notice it. I wonder if the same mechanism that is causing all that repetitive action on the Y chromosome is the same business; just lot of repeats that serve another purpose; yes this debate can go on for a long time but sometimes new themes and avenues of travel have to be taken in order for the paths to be open to new ideas and practices. Everything I am reading makes sense but still has a central dogma that things follow. Your expectations are from what source?
The limitation of poor seed production from inbred lines was overcome by an idea from D. F. Jones 1918, 1922 who, while still a graduate student, advocated using four-way, or double-cross hybrids. This involved crossing two inbred lines and crossing that hybrid with the hybrid of two other inbred lines. The seed-producing strain was thus a heterozygous single-cross, and four-way hybrids yielded about as much as two-way. The abundant seed immediately made the program practical. The four-way crosses were slightly more variable than two-way hybrids, but much less so than randomly mated (“open-pollinated”) varieties. East and Jones and their role in the history of genetics has been the subject of an earlier Perspectives article
Something akin to Posi-Tronics haze was done like this maybe?
The transition from open-pollinated to hybrid maize was astonishingly rapid. In Iowa, the proportion of hybrid corn grew from less than 10% in 1935 to well over 90% 4 years later. The transition in other corn-belt states was almost as fast, although somewhat slower in other parts of the United States. But by the 1950s, the great bulk of maize throughout the United States was hybrid. Why was this acceptance so rapid, especially in the corn belt? Substantially better yield is one reason, of course, but how obvious was this to the individual grower? The greater uniformity of hybrids was useful for machine harvesting, and this was undoubtedly a factor. Furthermore, a field of corn in which all the plants are alike, each with a single ear at the same height, is aesthetically pleasing, and this appealed to many corn growers. The hybrids could also incorporate favorable qualitative traits and be adapted to different habitats, especially length of growing season. Another possible reason was the practice of having leading growers demonstrate the robust hybrid plants to their neighbors. Yet another reason for the rapid spread, possibly the most important one, was that 1934–36 was in the dust-bowl period, and the hybrid strains were strikingly more resistant to drought than the open-pollinated varieties then in use
Thus the fly in the ointment so do we follow this to do away with our diversity or do we use this as a template to keep it free and out of the corporate control?? Yeah lots of ifs and buts candy and nuts.
Corn is actually pretty interesting!
So the yellow corn, was always and forever considered “feed corn” or Dent corn, and not something you’d want to eat. Nothing like today’s Sweet Corn varieties. Sweet Corn back in the day, prior to early 1900’s, only came in White, Black, and Orange. Not yellow or yellow/white.
One dude back in the late 1800s stabilized the first real yellow sweet corn variety and he hoarded it until he died. Only giving ears out to friends. When he died, the family found some kernels and gave them to one of his friend’s. That guy shared it out, sent it to burpee which turned it into the Golden Bantam variety, and that’s why we have yellow sweet corn today.
1-3 dude’s did the work and shared it. There’s a lot of stories like that in our vegetables. Look at the Idaho/Russet-Burbank potato. If it wasn’t for Luther Burbank running a bunch of potato plants in his field, spotting that particular one and realizing its potential, working the line, that wouldn’t exist today either. And its the most prolific potato variety on the planet.
Goes a bit like this’: In the world of agriculture, the art of hybridization and selfing in corn breeding has led to remarkable advancements, reshaping the landscape of modern farming and elevating crop yields to new heights.
Hybridization, the controlled cross-pollination of carefully selected parent lines, has revolutionized corn production. By combining the best traits from different varieties, hybrid corn exhibits superior vigor, yield potential, and resilience to environmental stresses. Farmers worldwide have witnessed firsthand the transformative impact of hybrid corn, experiencing bumper harvests and increased profitability.
But the journey doesn’t end there. Through the process of selfing, these hybrid progenies undergo multiple generations of inbreeding, refining their genetic makeup and enhancing the stability of desirable traits. The result? Corn varieties with unparalleled uniformity, consistency, and adaptability, tailored to thrive in diverse agro-climatic conditions.
From the bustling fields of the Midwest to the sun-drenched plains of Africa, the fruits of hybridization and selfing have empowered farmers to overcome challenges and unlock the full potential of their land. With each passing season, these resilient corn varieties continue to inspire awe, fueling hopes of a bountiful harvest and a brighter future for generations to come.
Yes they are viable so 
. Might let a few more come up then onto the MB15 for the DC have been hit with pollen from three different males.
Recurrent Selection would be implemented when desired traits are found and set in motion a novel type that would be desirable.
I am sittin’ and smokin’ and thinkin’… 
If a boost in cytokinin can turn a male plant female as @cactus has shown here.
I can’t help but wonder if you grafted a male onto a very solid female root stock would it have a similar effect?
Just smoke talk here…but I would like to hear some comments on the topic if anyone has the energy.
If we shift the balance of hormones in favor of cytokinin we get a female.
If we shift them in favor of gibberelin we get a male.
We know cytokinin is produced mainly in the roots so in my mind it just makes good sense.
But I could be missing something.
BTW @Cactus I think @Fuel is a softer nicer version of @TomHill
I miss @TomHill
I still love that guy but @Fuel is a smart MOFO too. 
It is good to have you around Fuel! 
