Re: [nafex] Re: Meader persimmons

["Lon J. Rombough" <lonrom@hevanet.com>]

Several years ago I went throught Jim Claypool's notes and used the results
to work out a theory of the inheritance of sex in American persimmons, to
take into account the appearance of limbs of opposite sex flowers on a tree
(limbs of male flowers on female trees, etc.).  For convenience, we decided
to call ordinary persimmons as having XX for female and XO for male, O being
the plant equivalent of a Y chromosome.  Though in truth I think there isn't
much difference between the X and O, only a very few genes.
     Opposite sex types had at least one of those chromosomes with a mutant
gene on it that coded for flowers of the opposite sex on the tree, and those
were X' and O'.  A tree that had X'X was a female that would have some limbs
of male flowers.  X'O was a male that would, in some cases, have small
seedless fruit on it.  X'X' was a female that had a strong tendency to
produce male limbs, while X'O' was a male that would produce perfect flowers
and normally seeded fruit.  Now, with the X'O', it was possible to
self-pollinate it and get trees that were O'O' and these, theoretically,
should be essentially perfect flowered types.  However, we don't have enough
test crosses to verify that.
    What it boils down to, is that it should be possible to cross the males
that produce perfect flowers and get some seedlings that produce ONLY
perfect flowers, or at least enough to make them truly useful, not just
something that takes up space once pollination is done.
    I hope this makes sense to all as it takes a LOT of writing to
re-explain the whole thing.  I am hopeful of doing a book on American
persimmons - kind of a new version of "Persimmons for Everyone" and will
include it in that when/if I can find a publisher.
-Lon Rombough
Grapes, unusual fruits, writing, consulting, more, at
http://www.hevanet.com/lonrom

----------
>From: jhecksel@voyager.net
>To: nafex@egroups.com
>Subject: Re: [nafex] Re: Meader persimmons
>Date: Sat, Dec 30, 2000, 3:14 PM
>

>
>
>Christopher Mauchline wrote:
>> 
>> >The "downside" was that all seeds would produce female plants as
>> >there was no "y" chromosome pollen produced.Just a thought.
>> 
>> Would this be so for plants?  
>
>Doggone it.  My wife warned me about putting "Aflict the comfortable" in
>the signature.
>
>Christopher, I just plain do not know.  In this case, it is something I
>read.  I cannot say it is something I know to be a fact or that it is
>something that I tried.  It is just that if I were going to fiddle
>around and try to make Meader behave as if it were self fertile, I would
>mulch it to within an inch of its life and I would prune the tree to
>ensure that sunlight penetrated the canopy.  Unless somebody else in the
>egroup can suggest a better way.  Who knows, maybe a foliar feeding
>heavy in K before it pushes its flower buds is the trick?  K can do
>funny things during bud initiation.
>
>>Reptiles (I think) don't have a "sex"
>> chromosome (gestational temp often determines sex), birds have XZ and
>> XX (and if I remember correctly the males are the XX).  Only mammals
>> consistently are XX and XY (and even there they've recently found a
>> genus of S. American mice that has XX females and XY Males and
>> Females (and the XY Females appear to be "super moms").
>> 
>> I'm just saying I'm not sure how it "works" for plants - I honestly
>> don't know, but it may not be a "no male's produced" situation.
>> 
>> Chris Mauchline
>> SE PA, zone 6
>> 
>
>
>-- 
>
>                                                     -Joe Hecksel
>                                                      Eaton Rapids,
>Michigan
>
>
>
>
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Download Net2Phone's free software to make FREE calls anywhere within
the US from your PC now! Get great low rates on international calls!
http://click.egroups.com/1/10923/0/_/423498/_/978218541/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->