To the rest of the breeding world, F1 hybrids are the result of crossing two inbred lines. Just do a search on F1 hybrid; I bet every site you find that’s not a cannabis site will be talking about crossing inbred lines. It’s only to the cannabis community that it just doesn’t matter, and everything that’s crossed results in a F1 hybrid.
6 Likes
Lol, obviously I only breed with cannabis 
Everything I learned about plant breeding is from weed forums! Lololol
6 Likes
Sort of - choosing distinctly different parents will absolutely increase the diversity of their F1 progeny. However taking that F1 to F2 will reveal much of the hidden diversity inside that cross. That is, all of the recessive genes stuck inside of heterozygous pairs (ex. Aa, Bb, etc.) will have a chance to recombine and express themselves (ex. aa, bb)
11 Likes
I can get it’s the popular colloquial definition but I haven’t seen that expressed in the literature I’ve read (allard 1960). And again, IBL is itself a vaguely defined term. Do you define it as going past a certain filial generation? F3? F5? F10? What if I select for maximum diversity in the line? What if my F10 line shows no signs of inbreeding depression and high variance between progeny? Do you define it as a line that is true breeding? Does the IBL need to breed true for all traits or just a few? Just one?
I think the distinction of “true” and “pure” is just poorly defined hair splitting with little to no real world value.
4 Likes
In the world of plant breeding, what I stated holds true. If you are breeding for desired results then your parental plants should be homogenous and true-breeding for specific traits (also known as IBL). IBL is not vague to me, it should indicate stability and a predictable outcome.
Yes we all do this in the world of cannabis because it’s easy to communicate and we all understand when someone says F1 or F2 but what you are referring to is pollen chucking not breeding. I use the same terminology as well because as I mentioned it’s easy to communicate. But I liken it to how we all use the terms sativa and indica. Are these the most accurate scientific descriptions? I don’t know but that’s a whole different discussion and we all use those terms because it’s easy to communicate and thus the terminology perpetuates rightly or wrongly.
I didn’t mean this to become a disagreement of any sort as I was just replying from the thought process of “breeding” and not pollen chucking.
7 Likes
And just to be clear I know the definitions of the terms I just didn’t know how else to get my point across 
lol and thank y’all for your inputs
2 Likes
http://ecoursesonline.iasri.res.in/course/view.php?id=134
Here’s an entire course put online for plant breeding. Now “pollen chuckers” can become “breeders.”
4 Likes
I don’t define it at all. I’m just saying what I’ve read elsewhere. Most sources I’ve read just say IBL and call it a day, you’re right on that. Maybe this is close to an “official” definition? It says about 20 generations to be ~98% homozygous is what’s usually called inbred, but some strains have been bred 150 generations to be fully isogenic.
3 Likes
Emphasis my own 
In trying to create an objective definition, I have a hard time taking subjective qualities like desire and “to me” into consideration
I don’t disagree that breeding two stable lines will result in more predicable progeny relative to breeding two less stable lines. But you’re still breeding two lines. You may call it chucking or fucking or “gettin it on” or any other slang phrasing but we’re all still talking about the same scientific word for that, which is breeding and the same terminology referring to filial generations of that line applies.
5 Likes
My case in point. IIRC Allard defined it as I think F5+. You can see how these definitions shift with time because like the rest of taxonomy it’s kinda arbitrary
2 Likes
It’s also simply impossible to lock down exactly what generation it happens, assuming you define an inbred line as one that’s fully homozygous. That’s the real qualification, not how many generations it’s been bred… it’s a lot tougher for people to count though. 
2 Likes
I think I just have it in my mind that breeding is done with an intentional outcome and pollen chucking is more like hey let’s see what happens. So that’s the context in which my statements come from. If you swap the words desired with intended then that sentence still reads the same to me.
5 Likes
I thought it’s 80% homozygous was considered ibl in food crop production and that’s what the context of most accredited literature
This is definitely not a new topic. I’ll continue to use F1, F2, etc. in the same way that everyone else does as you describe but I don’t think my original post was inaccurate.
3 Likes
Was that you that gave me some of those and Lesotho?
I offered the seed somewhere up above…
3 Likes
and “filial” is not a new word
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/filial
They quote gregor mendel ( from here on page 101) who specifically mentions F1’s of impure parents
EDIT: I think the quote was actually from William Castle. I’m not sure why gregor is listed as a coauthor but briefly looking around that doesn’t appear to be true. But still, having the shorthand defined over 110 years ago in a biology textbook is good enough for me 
3 Likes
Here’s some peru (north jungle) grown in manitoba.
Straight skunk
mm
20 Likes
Is this the same cut that Mr. Toad From Bone Yard Seeds uses in his crosses?
1 Like
F1 is just offspring resulting from a parental cross
2 Likes
