Sorry dude but flowering plants produce seeds not spores.
You need to study up on your basic botany then get back to us.
"George Hammond" <ghammond at mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3A3C13B6.D8241A58 at mediaone.net...
> Cereoid wrote:
> >
> > Sorry but you are mistaken. The "Dandelion" is not an asexually clonally
> > propagated species. It reproduces from seeds. Seeds are propagated
sexually
> > by definition.
>> GH: That's what i was asking.. i got the impression Dandelion "seeds"
> were actually "spores"... thanks for the info.
>>> > An asexually propagated species is one propagated from offsets, division
or
> > tissue culture.
>> GH: I'm aware of the definition.
>> [Hammond]
> Elsewhere you have asked what the BOTTOM LINE of this discussion
> is. well, here it is. Perhaps you can answer the fundamental question
> which is posed below:
>> > > GH: You've totally missed the point. I DON'T WANT TO CONTROL
ANYTHING.
> > > What I want to know is, what is the Standard Deviation of plant
> > > growth in the "real environment" when we are talking strictly
about
> > > a crop of geneetically identical plants?
> > > Now, somebody in agriculture must KNOW the answer to this, say
> > > for potatoes, or onions or some other asexual crop plant.
> >
> > It depends on the variety and on the trait, and it depends if you are
talking
> > about the SD within a field or between fields. For something like
flower color,
> > the SD would be close to zero.
>> GH: Right, I understand that.
>> > For something like height or yield, it would
> > fairly uniform within a field (barring spots which are overly wet/dry,
or
> > otherwise inappropropriate),
>> GH: YES, this is what I'm talking about, "gross overall size",
> I'm NOT concerned with "specific traits".
> I argue that there is such a thing as a "growth curve" for
> ALL plants and animals and the "plateau" of this
> curve represents what we call "maturity", or
> "terminal growth".
> However, there is reason to believe that there is such
> a thing as a "theoretical growth curve" for any given
> genetic species, and that in fact, since a large cloned
> plant population has a "terminal growth variance"; that very
> few plants EVER achieve this "theoretical growth curve".
> Would you agree with this speculation?
>> but could be quite large between fields, depending
> > on how distant they are. Breeders generally call this genotype x
environment
> > interactions. Genotypes are known which are more stable across
environments than
> > others. In the end, the SD is difficult to predict without measuring
it.
>> GH: Yes, it is the "between fields" VARIANCE that I am talking about.
> You apparently agree that such a thing exists and can be
> measured.
>> >
> > Keep in mind that plants need not reproduce vegetatively to be
genetically
> > identical. Hybrids from inbred parents (as in a field of corn) are
genetically
> > identical. So are inbred plants (as in a field of soybean) and
apomictic plants
> > (as in dandelions).
>> GH: You see; the question here is nothing but the old NATURE-NURTURE
> discussion.... with a NEW TWIST.
> It is now hypothesized that higher animals, and probably plants,
> have something which we could call a "nominal maximum genetic
> size", and that in the natural environment, very few IF ANY
> individual specimens EVER ACHIEVE IT.
> The object then, becomes the task of PROVING THIS CONJECTURE.
> That is, proving from existing data, that there is such a
> thing as a "terminal growth deficit" that exists for all
> plants and animals, and naturally we would want to eliminate
> "genetic variation" from the measurements, which is why the
> question has come up explicitly concerning "clonal" plants.
>>> --
> BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> George Hammond, M.S. Physics
> Email: ghammond at mediaone.net> Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html> -----------------------------------------------------------
