Is it true that named clones are negligibly different from standard varieties?

[Glass Roots]

I'll tell you a real, & huge problem with selective breeding is coaxing & convincing certain plants to produce flower buds that mature to the point of actually flowering. And hopefully they flower at or near the same time as the other plants you want to selectively breed them with.

So if the time frame for flowering is this variable, you'd have to start with a very large amount of cacti to be able to effectively selectively breed,beating the odds it by sheer numbers.

Consider a plot of ground containing many different fully mature species and or clones. All get the same sunlight, the same watering, the same nutrient applications; all experience the exact same growing conditions. What makes one flower profusely one year and absolutely zilch the next year?

Why has one plant never produced a flower bud and lower branch cuttings of that same plant left in full sun for three months not only flowered but have set fruit after being crossed? Did they perceive they were nearing extinction & thus made an effort at survival by flowering?

I have no idea of the answer to this, but this does make me want to figure it out.

[Auxin]

Cacti dont have to flower at the same time in order to cross them.

Collect the pollen, desiccate the pollen, store sample in a hermetically sealed desiccated environment at -30°C.

That should buy you a year to find a breeding partner.

Indicating silica desiccant can be found in hobby shops with the flower drying gear. It can be regenerated in an oven.

[nitrogen]

I don't store it that cold, just in the fridge - but I second dessicating the pollen - the "Damp Rid" product is great for this - if the pollen isn't dessicated the moisture in it leads to spoiling much more quickly..

[Auxin]

-30°C is simply my freezer set on coldest, thats why I use that temp for my chilli pollens (which are shorter lived than cactus pollens).

Standard refrigerator, with desiccation, does indeed buy you at least a few months for cactus pollen from memory. I read a post on that by a breeder on a BBS about 15 years ago, if my foggy and (then) drug clouded memory is accurate he said two months was fine at 4°C

[Glass Roots]

Thanks for all the good information guys. Sorry if I'm bombarding you guys with questions

When I learn something new about something i'm interested in, it usually just brings up more questions.

[M S Smith]

Is it true that named clones are negligibly different from standard varieties?

I've seen many people state that the difference in named clones and standard bridgesii, peruv, pach, ect. is barely noticeable. A lot of them attribute this to there not being enough selective breeding over generations, but is that true? I know there has been enough time since the introduction of trich's to accomplish this, but not knowing the lineage of all of the clones I couldn't say for certain that they haven't all just acquired a slight variation via their natural habitat.

There is as much difference between a named clone and a "standard bridgesii, peruv, pach, ect." as there is between a non-named clone and a " standard bridgesii, peruv, pach, ect."

~Michael~

Edited August 24, 2013 by M S Smith

[Glass Roots]

There is as much difference between a named clone and a "standard bridgesii, peruv, pach, ect." as there is between a non-named clone and a " standard bridgesii, peruv, pach, ect."

~Michael~

We'll just have to change that then.

[Auxin]

I think thats a rather extremist simplification. Or at least the way most readers would read it is.

Its true, many named plants are just ordinary ones that grew well for whoever named them but to say all the names are meaningless is to say that PC, Juul's, and the circulating Huancabamba pachanois are effectively identical.

Its also to say the TBM clones A and B are no different.

A clone getting a name means that someone found it of particular value, the subsequent proliferation of that clone among collectors shows which are of particular value to other people in other circumstances.

And then, as you indicate, theres the mere book-keeping. That includes collected knowledge of disease susceptibility, preferred climate and soil, etc., hardly trivial things to a collector.

Our words we tag to them may just be half arbitrary small mouth noises and our thoughts just trivia meaningful only to us in the end, but being capable of discriminating between a plum and a peach, or a PC and a Huancabamba is hardly a useless endeavor. The cactus might not care, but people do.

How would your studies of flower morphology progress without names and nomenclature?

[Glass Roots]

Also as far as how long it takes for flowering being problematic for selective breeding:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/16958961/fpart/14/vc/1

Mostly_Harmless was able to get his willie to flower in 138 days from sow via peres graft (128 days from germination).

As far as columnar cacti are concerned, I'm not sure if this relates at all. It does show that loph's maturity is sped up by the graft. Does this mean that trich would also get a boost in maturity from the graft?

Edited August 25, 2013 by Glass Roots

[Auxin]

Cacti more or less have a size that they mature at, sometimes additional factors are needed too like a frozen winter or UV radiation, but grown on their own roots or grafted the size seems to be an absolute limiter.

Willies can get to the flowering size on pereskiopsis quite easily, and many people get flowers in 8 months, some in less.

I recently degrafted a real vigorous Icaro at the 8 month mark, it got to 4.5 cm diam and 12 cm tall on pereskiopsis. A good result... but far from the 2 meters tall it might need for flowering

The biological theory is a plant cant reproduce until it undergoes a phase transition like our puberty, two year old humans just cant get pregnant, and in plants they have a roughly fixed age or size before they transition and become capable of producing flowers. So boosting a trichs growth by a year on peres might get it a year closer, grafting it to a much larger stock might speed things along more... but 'size matters' in the end.

[M S Smith]

I think thats a rather extremist simplification. Or at least the way most readers would read it is.

Its true, many named plants are just ordinary ones that grew well for whoever named them but to say all the names are meaningless is to say that PC, Juul's, and the circulating Huancabamba pachanois are effectively identical.

Its also to say the TBM clones A and B are no different.

A clone getting a name means that someone found it of particular value, the subsequent proliferation of that clone among collectors shows which are of particular value to other people in other circumstances.

And then, as you indicate, theres the mere book-keeping. That includes collected knowledge of disease susceptibility, preferred climate and soil, etc., hardly trivial things to a collector.

Our words we tag to them may just be half arbitrary small mouth noises and our thoughts just trivia meaningful only to us in the end, but being capable of discriminating between a plum and a peach, or a PC and a Huancabamba is hardly a useless endeavor. The cactus might not care, but people do.

How would your studies of flower morphology progress without names and nomenclature?

Auxin, I think you are missing my point completely and in fact making my extremely brief comments much more complicated than they are.

I addressed two matters of Glass Roots' original post, these being, "Is it true that named clones are negligibly different from standard varieties?" and "I've seen many people state that the difference in named clones and standard bridgesii, peruv, pach, ect. is barely noticeable...but is that true?"

Glass Roots is obviously making referrence to the propensity of this community to name clones, as well as wondering if these clones are somehow more special than plants of the same species. Now of course just because a plant has a so called "clone name" doesn't mean that it is a standout of any significant import from others of the same species, sub-species, or variety, but only stands out in relationship to others within an accepted collection, whether than be yours, mine, or all of ours together. The fact that we named a plant Bruce, Lance, Psycho, etc., etc., etc., ummmm, etc., doesn't mean that they are in any way of significant difference from those which exist in the region from which they originated, and therefore most of our named clones are "negligibly different from standard varieties."

Hope that helps, but what's with the jab man?

~Michael~

Edited August 25, 2013 by M S Smith

[Auxin]

Thank you.

I expected thats what you meant to say but your previous brevity was a bit too brief, thats why I missed your point half-intentionally.

N00bs and beginners would have taken you for the simplest interpretation. People consider your opinions and knowledge to carry a fair bit of weight, I didnt want people walking away thinking names were totally arbitrary and meaningless. The expanded version of your opinion does far better justice to your logic.

[M S Smith]

Dude, you have no idea how hard I slaved over answering you. I started writing last night, scrapped it all may two or three time, slept on it, and then sat down this morning and started all over again, with another answer or two thrown on the scrap heap until that tight little wad of information finally made it out. See ya, and thanks for the challenge, I really needed it to take my mind off some other things.

~Michael~

[Optimystic]

it's worth starting cacti from seeds

it's very rewarding

it's nice to know the parents

but ebay seeds are fun too

I thought named clones was more of a social thing which just happened to carryover to ebay alot

Edited August 25, 2013 by Spine Collector