Victoria,

Your greenhouses must have been in bizarro land. The situation is exactly the
opposite as you describe. A rooted cutting is a clone. Plants raised from rooted
cuttings may show some form of "reversion" but the genetic material that underlies
the reversion came from the mother plant.
On the other hand, tissue culture can produce genetic changes that result in
plants that are genetically different than their parents, hence NOT clones.

--beeky

escapee wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 06:12:47 -0400, Cheryl Isaak
opined:

On 5/10/04 9:03 PM, in article ,
"escapee" wrote:

On Mon, 10 May 2004 21:58:38 GMT, figaro opined:

The term is "clone" and basically just means taking a cutting to produce a
clone of the original plant with the same genetics and attributes.

Not always and not usually. Clone of plant matter is generally done by
selective tissue culture. It's a bit different than taking a cutting.


Nope - scientifically, to clone is to reproduce the parent plant exactly.
Cuttings do just that, just as tissue culture does.
Cheryl

I said not always and not usually. I didn't say never. When new sports were
found in our greenhouses, we'd do tissue culture clones to assure the
differentiation was still evident in the cloned plant. If cuttings were taken
of said sport, there are significant chances the plant can revert in
characteristic. When cloned by tissue culture you are assured to have the sport
perform as the original sport on the plant you took the culture of.

So, both are correct, but in the industry when something is asexually cloned it
generally means it was reproduced by tissue culture to insure the anomaly.

Victoria