ereoid 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.
Wrong. Recheck your definition. It is possible to get seed without sex-- we
call that apomixis.
> It is apomictic but does show some variation in its offspring. Why should
> you assume its offspring are genetically identical?
If the apomixis is facultative, the seed will be a mixture of sexual seed and
apomictic seed.
>>> An asexually propagated species is one propagated from offsets, division or
> tissue culture.
>> "George Hammond" <ghammond at mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3A3B153B.76E10241 at mediaone.net...> > Cereoid wrote:
> > >
> > > Cloned plants would genetically identical. One can theoretically raise
> an
> > > INFINITE number of genetically identical plants. Mind boggling, isn't
> it? It
> > > is being done all the time.
> >
> >
> > GH: no kidding... thanks for the info.
> >
> > >
> > > The rest depends on how they were raised. Genetically identical plants
> grown
> > > under different conditions may outwardly look different.
> > >
> >
> > GH: I understand it depends on what part the plant started from in the
> > case of fragmentation etc.
> > However, in the case of some well organized "spore" bearing
> > asexual plants, they should all look pretty much the same... like
> > Dandelions for instance. (A Dandelion is an asexual plant if
> > I'm not mistaken).
> > Now, it's pretty noticeable on your lawn that some Dandelions get
> > a lot larger than others at maturity. If we assume that they are all
> > genetically IDENTICAL (or arranged it so), then this would tell us
> > something about the effect of the "average environment" on Dandelion
> > growth, would it not? I mean, we could compute a mean and a
> > standard deviation for the height and weight of an ensemble
> > of "genetically identical" Dandelions... isn't this so? This would
> > tell us how much the "environmental variance" was.
> >
> > > The old nature verses nurture argument?
> > >
> >
> > GH: Yes sir.... big time. The thesis here, is that there is such a
> > thing as a "universal environmental growth curve deficit" for, in
> > effect,
> > every living thing on the planet. Of course, you have to "eliminate
> > the genetic component" first, to measure it. Seems to me, from what
> > I've heard.... agriculturists must ALREADY KNOW the answer
> > to this question, at least for specific asexual crops... and
> > probably know it to 2-decimal places. I'd like to find out
> > what it is.
> >
> > You have no idea how important this is. Scientists now suspect
> > that this "universal growth curve deficit" in humans (see:
> >
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/growth5.JPG> >
> > is actually the scientific explanation of "God", because of it's
> > impact on the brain.
> > Identical Twin studies are used extensively in Psychology as
> > you know. But now it is suspected that this "growth curve deficit"
> > actually exists in every living thing... and the first thing to look
> > at would be Plants... where, interestingly, the genetic component
> > can apparently be ENTIRELY ELIMINATED, unlike the case for the
> > higher animals because of sexual reproduction.
> > Any further info on asexual crop measurements... such as
> > the "standard deviation in crop yield per acre" for identical
> > plants, would be of the keenest interest.
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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> > -----------------------------------------------------------
