Dominant genetic reversion on hybrid ?

[David Humphries]

These pictures are from the infamous Quercus x hispanica 'fulhamensis'

 

Hybrid of Q suber (Cork) & Q cerris (Turkey)

 

First shot is the lamas growth (from August) at the tip, appears to be reverting to cerris as opposed to the earlier growth lower down, which is the hybrid foliage.

 

Second shot is from same leaf cluster, showing "reverted" ? cerris type on the left.

 

Next two pictures are of suber and cerris respectively for reference.

 

Last shot, year on from retrenchment.

 

.

[Dean Lofthouse]

Isn't reverting the Trees way of saying, "Stop messing with me mate, I want nowt to do wi it"

[Bundle 2]

No but dominance can be an environment thing...so perhaps its an " I cant hope to cut it here like this " thing.....must stop saying thing!!

[Amelanchier]

As a hybrid though, its a blend of genes. Strictly a sexual event. As opposed to the kind of distinct seperation that reversion involves. I.e., mutation in individual meristems.

 

I think leaf morphology is so flexible that it would be hard to define this as a reversion.

[Bundle 2]

So it is environmental then as somatic mutation is not likely, competition in terms of "success" or perhaps "results " the way the plant does it is more likely...certainly more adaptable, which I wouldnt say of reversion ( adaptable i mean )

Certainly is a chameleon for a tree!!

[ScottF]

As a hybrid though, its a blend of genes. Strictly a sexual event. As opposed to the kind of distinct seperation that reversion involves. I.e., mutation in individual meristems.

 

I think leaf morphology is so flexible that it would be hard to define this as a reversion.

 

I agree with Tony on the leaf morphology issue. And I reckon Quercus spp. are more flexible than most!

[Dean Lofthouse]

Is there a point where messing with tree genes goes wrong and we don't recognise it.

 

For example, if e are talking in human terms, some of us carry the downs syndrome gene. If we "mated two trees and mixed a rogue gene, would we reconised that it is a "wrong un" and stand back and go "ooh that's different" and carry on with that line.

 

What I am trying to say in a simplistic way is could reversion be natures way of getting back to a pure gene pool by getting rid of the rogue gene

 

Or am I totally off track

[Amelanchier]

Is there a point where messing with tree genes goes wrong and we don't recognise it.

 

For example, if e are talking in human terms, some of us carry the downs syndrome gene. If we "mated two trees and mixed a rogue gene, would we reconised that it is a "wrong un" and stand back and go "ooh that's different" and carry on with that line.

 

What I am trying to say in a simplistic way is could reversion be natures way of getting back to a pure gene pool by getting rid of the rogue gene

 

Or am I totally off track

 

 

 

Off track in places! Genes are only 'bad' because we don't like their effects or because we don't want their effects. 'Pure' is another such concept, nothing in reality is pure. Its dodgy ground so take care!

 

 

Basically in genetic terms, if you don't change, you lose. Problem being that there are many more ways of changing (mutation-wise) for the worse than there are of changing for the better.

 

So trees that don't work (genetically) just don't reproduce, get old, or perhaps don't even grow at all.

 

(Downs syndrome is not heriditary. There is no gene that codes for the expression of the syndrome, it results from the development of another pair of chromosomes post fertilisation.)

[Will Hinchliffe]

Could it be that the shoots at the tips were not able draw up as much water and there cells are not filling out giving them a more lobed and dwarfed appearance. Just an idea I am not saying that is what is going on.

[Will Hinchliffe]

They don't really look dwarfed do they?