On Fri, 21 May 2004 01:41:45 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

Wed, 19 May 2004 23:25:46 -0700 Father Haskell wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I remove about 50% of the leaves on a stem for a "cutting". I am guessing that
the leaves signal the bottom of the stem "hey, throw out some roots so that I
can remain alive."

Snip the remaining leaves in half. This reduces transpiration, helping to
keep the slips from dessicating. You're using a humidity tent?

At the soil end, you're wounding the stem by clipping the leaves at point
of insertion. This initiates regeneration, the first step toward rooting.

It would be interesting research to find out the optimal percent of leaves left
on a stem of a cutting in order for successful rooting. I would guess that
between 50% to 67% is the optimal range of leaves kept on in order for
successful rooting. And the science behind it would be that the leaves signal
the cambium layer to thrust out roots. And 100% leaves left on is unable to
keep those leaves and so the die back is such a drain on energy and even
signalling energy that the whole stem dies.

Leave enough to feed the slips until they root. I believe the roots
signal themselves to grow. Rooting compounds work by triggering growth of
stem cells, which, as we all know, can convert into any other sort of cell.
Those stem cells in an area favorable to root growth turn into, well, roots.

Last night I got a new batch of cuttings and now have about 20 cuttings each of
Sunburst honeylocust, Crimson King acer platanoides and shiner blue spruce for
a total of 60 cuttings. I would be happy with a 10% success rate. I think the
biggest problem is fungal growth in the moist and damp soil conditions.

Hunt down a jar of Olivia's Cloning Gel, and your success rate will approach
100%. Makes Rootone F look like baby powder. Of the last 3 dozen cuttings
treated with Olivia's (and watered initially with a kelp solution, misted
twice daily thereafter), I think I've had four fail. In all successful
cases, slips with thick, strong root masses were ready for transplant in
under three weeks.

Can't find the Olivia's, improve your odds by taking more slips.

I am not sure about your claim of stem cell induction. Even so, if granted true,
then there may or must exist a chemical in which animal stem cells can be produced.

Also, from a theoretical angle of the question as to whether the plant kingdom
existed a long time before the animal kingdom came into existence, or, as to my
belief based on QM of biology that the animal and plant kingdom came into existence
roughly at the same time would indicate that the cloning of plants and the cloning
of animals would be different as per those scenarios. If the animal kingdom evolved
out of the plant kingdom then the cloning of animals should be an impossibility. But
if the animal kingdom was independently created apart from the plant kingdom and not
evolved, then the cloning of plants and the cloning of animals should exist in both
kingdoms with some parity even though the cloning of animals is more difficult. If
Darwin Evolution were correct that animals evolved from plants with its huge lapse
and gap in time, then it would be impossible or near impossible to ever clone
animals but evidence shows us amphibians clonable. So the issue of cloning divides
the question of Evolution versus QM duality of the two kingdoms.

The original statement was "triggering stem cells to grow", not "stem
cell induction" which is a very different thing.

I must protest your notion of "QM of biology" arguing for some sort of
quantal mechanical duality between plants and animals. Both true
plants (embryophytes) and true animals (eumetazoa) evolved from single
celled eukaryotic precursors in the Kingdom Protista. There are a
number of molecular biology and genomic factors relating all the
multicellular organisms: plants, animals, and fungi. This probably
relates to the development of genes that can regulate and control cell
differentiation and that can maintain signaling processes between the
distinct cell types to keep the activities of the multicellular
organism somewhat coordinated. However, "plant-like" organisms
(formerly called algae) and "animal-like" organisms (formerly called
protozoa) were in existence long before true plants and animals
arose. Plants did not evolve from animals nor did animals evolve from
plants. The first several billion years of life on earth occurred
without the existence either of animals or of plants.

Cloning of plants and of animals share the basic idea of reproduction
through asexual reproduction, that is, purely through mitotic cell
division. But they differ enormously because plants maintain stocks of
meristem (what in animals is called stem cells) and can readily
regenerate all organs: roots, stems, and leaves. As a result, you can
"easily" clone plants through cuttings or graftings. The original
thread relates to the fact that "easy conceptually" does not always
translate to "easy in the potting room". Animals usually do not retain
totipotent stem cells and most cannot readily regenerate complete
organs and body structure and so animal cloning must necessarily pass
through an embryonic stage of development.