Kay wrote:

Or has Lamarckism come back into favour since I
was last on the fringes of evolutionary study?

And if you cut off the scapes every year, the garlic will produce shorter
and eventually no scapes at all?

Seriously, garlic does somehow have a "memory," in that many growers know
that a variety new to their location will adapt and do better (sometimes)
in several seasons. I know that's impossible, which proves that I don't
know everything...


Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~gwoods
Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 13:50:40 +0100, Kay wrote:

In article , Rodger Whitlock
writes
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 08:08:09 +0100, Seb Flyte wrote:

...I have 16 good heads and 200+ individual cloves. Many of
these are of a good size and can be used. The smallest I will replant
although I see this is not recommended.

You should always put aside the best as your seed stock for the
next season. If you plant the runts, you will be selecting for
runtiness. Remember that even though propagated vegetatively,
there is some variation in the progeny.

Explain! ;-)
I can see that some will have grown bigger than others, and that the big
ones have a better food store for starting off the new plant, and that
therefore planting bigger cloves will give you better plants next year.

But there isn't any genetic variability, surely? So you're not selecting
in that sense if you propagate vegetatively? In other words, even if
chose a runt you could reverse the process with a few seasons good
feeding, or vice versa. Or has Lamarckism come back into favour since I
was last on the fringes of evolutionary study?

There is some genetic variability, if I can trust my reading.
Some authors claim quite a lot, but I have my doubts about that.
(I've seen serious claims that the genetic variability among the
twigs of one apple tree is comparable to that among a similar
number of seedlings of the same apple.)

And genetics is a pretty complex subject. The ordinary Mendelian
genetics we all know and love is really only a first
approximation or broad-brush picture; there are lots of details
that transcend that model, including mechanisms for selective
activation and deacivation of genes. Since garlic is vegetatively
propagated, it's easy to imagine that these mechanisms may
influence the behavior of progeny. [Don't as me for details: I am
treading water here.]

Lamarckism would be more like "if I grow my garlic in tight
girdles to make it small, it will become small." Or is that
Lysenkoism? Maybe Lamarckism is "the garlic has a desire to grow
small, hence will."

Anyway, it's always a good idea to select the best for
replanting, no matter what style of propagation you're using.

Someone else mentioned viruses, but in crops like garlic that
have been vegetatively propagated for very long times, I'd expect
that they're already loaded to the gunnels with viruses.

--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
[change "atlantic" to "pacific" and
"invalid" to "net" to reply by email]

In article , Rodger Whitlock
writes
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 13:50:40 +0100, Kay wrote:


But there isn't any genetic variability, surely? So you're not selecting
in that sense if you propagate vegetatively? In other words, even if
chose a runt you could reverse the process with a few seasons good
feeding, or vice versa. Or has Lamarckism come back into favour since I
was last on the fringes of evolutionary study?

There is some genetic variability, if I can trust my reading.
Some authors claim quite a lot, but I have my doubts about that.
(I've seen serious claims that the genetic variability among the
twigs of one apple tree is comparable to that among a similar
number of seedlings of the same apple.)

Doesn't that make a mockery of vegetative propagation of garden
varieties?

And genetics is a pretty complex subject. The ordinary Mendelian
genetics we all know and love is really only a first
approximation or broad-brush picture; there are lots of details
that transcend that model, including mechanisms for selective
activation and deacivation of genes. Since garlic is vegetatively
propagated, it's easy to imagine that these mechanisms may
influence the behavior of progeny. [Don't as me for details: I am
treading water here.]

OK - well, I'm at the first-base level of reading how DNA is replicated
during cell splitting so each cell has a copy of what was in the
parental cell. Where is the variability coming from? Mistakes in
copying? Selective activation and deactivation? Both?

Isn't selective activation and deactivation different from genetic
variability - ie the two bits can be genetically identical but have
different genes expressed?


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

"Rodger Whitlock" wrote in message
...

[snip]

There is some genetic variability, if I can trust my reading.
Some authors claim quite a lot, but I have my doubts about that.
(I've seen serious claims that the genetic variability among the
twigs of one apple tree is comparable to that among a similar
number of seedlings of the same apple.)

If that were true, it would make a total mockery of the naming and
"patenting" of varieties. How would one then legally establish
whether two varieties which looked very similar were in fact
propagated from the same plant or not?

Franz

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 21:40:25 +0100, Kay wrote:

In article , Rodger Whitlock
writes
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 13:50:40 +0100, Kay wrote:


But there isn't any genetic variability, surely? So you're not selecting
in that sense if you propagate vegetatively?...

There is some genetic variability, if I can trust my reading.
Some authors claim quite a lot, but I have my doubts about that.
(I've seen serious claims that the genetic variability among the
twigs of one apple tree is comparable to that among a similar
number of seedlings of the same apple.)

Doesn't that make a mockery of vegetative propagation of garden
varieties?

The text I referred to was written in the context that many apple
cultivars were at one time propagated by seed -- they were seed
strains, rather than clones. Naturally, such strains would have
come fairly true to type.

And genetics is a pretty complex subject.

OK - well, I'm at the first-base level of reading how DNA is replicated
during cell splitting so each cell has a copy of what was in the
parental cell. Where is the variability coming from? Mistakes in
copying? Selective activation and deactivation? Both?

Isn't selective activation and deactivation different from genetic
variability - ie the two bits can be genetically identical but have
different genes expressed?

If you reach a full understanding of all this, you're a better
man than I am, Gunga Din.


--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
[change "atlantic" to "pacific" and
"invalid" to "net" to reply by email]

David Hill wrote:
I wonder why we never see garlic harvested and sold "in the green".
That is pulled just before the first signs of bulbing starts, then the whole
thing leaves and stems can be used, and it is a little less strong than it
will be when it is harvested as a bulb

In Greece market stalls do this (about May time IIRC). It then cedes to
dried bulbs later in the summer.

Theo

David Hill wrote or quoted:

I wonder why we never see garlic harvested and sold "in the green".
That is pulled just before the first signs of bulbing starts, then the whole
thing leaves and stems can be used, and it is a little less strong than it
will be when it is harvested as a bulb

I can get garlic greens in my local chinese supermarket sometimes.

The "wild garlic" greens I have tasted have probably been the best.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

Franz Heymann wrote or quoted:
"Rodger Whitlock" wrote in message

(I've seen serious claims that the genetic variability among the
twigs of one apple tree is comparable to that among a similar
number of seedlings of the same apple.)

If that were true, it would make a total mockery of the naming and
"patenting" of varieties. How would one then legally establish
whether two varieties which looked very similar were in fact
propagated from the same plant or not?

Patenting plant varieties is ridiculous enough as it is -
I'm not sure it could be made even more so ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

On 12/8/04 8:24 am, in article , "Tim Tyler"
wrote:

Franz Heymann wrote or quoted:
"Rodger Whitlock" wrote in message

(I've seen serious claims that the genetic variability among the
twigs of one apple tree is comparable to that among a similar
number of seedlings of the same apple.)

If that were true, it would make a total mockery of the naming and
"patenting" of varieties. How would one then legally establish
whether two varieties which looked very similar were in fact
propagated from the same plant or not?

Patenting plant varieties is ridiculous enough as it is -
I'm not sure it could be made even more so ;-)

There's nothing ridiculous about it. Without plant breeders you wouldn't
*get* new varieties of anything. And why should they spend time and money
developing new strains for you to benefit while they don't?
As to proving the 'newness' of a plant, all such plants have to be trialled
both for 'uniqueness' and provenance before Plant Breeder's Rights are
applied for. The would-be breeder pays for all this before he makes a
farthing out of a new plant and not all plants are considered sufficiently
marketable to make it worthwhile, so in essence, he is taking a gamble from
which others might benefit in the long term. It is precisely the same as
anyone taking out a patent on that much-vaunted better mousetrap.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

Sacha wrote or quoted:
"Tim Tyler" wrote:

Patenting plant varieties is ridiculous enough as it is -
I'm not sure it could be made even more so ;-)

There's nothing ridiculous about it. Without plant breeders you wouldn't
*get* new varieties of anything.

Evolution clearly demonstrates that you are completely mistaken on
this point:

Patents are a recent invention - but new varieties have been
coming into existence regularly since the dawn of life.

If you can't patent plants people will *still* breed them - since
without plants there would be no human beings.

And why should they spend time and money developing new strains for you
to benefit while they don't?

That's most certainly not the situation in the absense of patents.

Without government-enforced monopolies, there are still
time-to-market considerations to consider, and the
reputation of the supplier is still a factor.

Also - in the case of plants, there's the possibilty of only releasing
sterile hybrids - an option many companies choose to exercise anyway,
perhaps not trusting their competitors not to reverse-engineer
their R+D. Not a foolproof solution - but it prevents amateurs
from sticking the seeds in the ground and creating more plants.

Plant patents mean that individuals can't sell seeds of plants
they grow - without conducting an elaborate patent search first -
unless they are prepared to run the risk of being sued.

This is an area where the teams of lawyers involved are basically
acting as blood-sucking parasites, feeding off the farmers and
growers - and severely hampering the free exchange of information.

IMO, the best thing to do would be to fire the entire legal
department - and let the free market get on and do its thing.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...

[snip]

Patenting plant varieties is ridiculous enough as it is -
I'm not sure it could be made even more so ;-)

There's nothing ridiculous about it. Without plant breeders you
wouldn't
*get* new varieties of anything. And why should they spend time and
money
developing new strains for you to benefit while they don't?

But they did do precisely that for untold generations before the Plant
Breeders' Rights came into being.

[snip]

Franz

Franz Heymann wrote:
But they did do precisely that for untold generations before the Plant
Breeders' Rights came into being.

That's why so many seeds sold were F1 hybrids - they are easily
predicatble but won't seed true.

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in
message ...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains
these words:


"Sacha" wrote in message
k...

There's nothing ridiculous about it. Without plant breeders you
wouldn't *get* new varieties of anything. And why should they
spend
time and
money developing new strains for you to benefit while they don't?

But they did do precisely that for untold generations before the
Plant
Breeders' Rights came into being.

That was in days when garden labour was dirt cheap,

That is another urban myth which should be dispelled.
My father-in-law's weekly wage was roughly 1/70 of the price of an
average house
A labourer's weekly wage today is roughly 1/150 of the price of an
average house.
My father-in-law's weekly wage was roughly 1/20 of the price of a
family car.
A labourer's weekly wage today is roughly 1/50 of the price of a
family car.
My father-in-law's weekly wage could have bought him nearly 300
packets of 20 cigarettes.
A labourer's weekly wage today will buy him only 60 packets of
cigarettes.
All three these indicators say that labour today is noticeably less
than the cost of labour in the 30's.
Feel free to make further real comparisons.

[snip]

Oh, by the way, I actually agree that a plant breeder should be given
a little headstart before the hortibiz wallahs are let loose.

Franz