From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Northeast

As we all become more tecnical in our abilities to grow pumpkins I think its about time we change the name of " clones" ie plants kept alive for more than one season and reused for pollen or fruits. We all know that these are not plants derived from a single cell a true clone( ie Dolly the Sheep), but simply a cutting kept alive indoors or in a greenhouse. I applaud Mark Sawtelle for his fine work with these tough little critters , but feel its time to rename them more accurately.Im open to suggestion for a new naming system . Perhaps something like this, 801.5 Stelts /Garrell Transplant 03. Rather than something like 801.5 Stelts clone x 876 Lloyd as a way to name the proginy of the cuttings.If youre thinking Im trying to keep an 801.5 transplant alive well you guessed it I am, almost there. Thanks , Sincerely Dave G

3/9/2004 6:23:00 PM

Webster, NY

Dave, I agree, they are not really clones, and you are right. That does not diminish all the hard work involved in keeping figuring out how to keep them alive all winter. Your names are as good as any.

Dave

3/9/2004 6:28:51 PM

Garden State Pumpkins

Cloned plants as we now know them could be an interesting subject...for example are any of the 801.5 clones a cutting off the original plant?? or are they off various seeds?? from an 801.5...Genetically a cutting from the original plant would be an identical Clone..no couldn't call it a clone since it was or is just a extension of the plant itself..did Bruce keep that 1458 alive??? LOL plenty to think about on this one Dave.

3/9/2004 7:46:52 PM

northern indiana

Why not just include a "C", for cutting or clone which ever you like, after the year of the fruit. This would be like UOW, DMG, EST, ect. It would inform people that the fruit was grown from a cutting and not a full plant.
Eric

3/9/2004 7:46:56 PM

Menomonie, WI ([email protected])

I refer to it as a cutting from the 801.5 stelts plant that grew the 1049Koch02. Now just try puting all that on one of those little envelopes..Then you wil know why I selfed it...

3/9/2004 8:55:44 PM

Indiana

I like 801.5 Stelts C myself....stands for clone, cutting, or just C. I currently dont mine the word "clone" because it sounds cool. But then again, it isnt very accurate......

Tom

3/9/2004 8:56:21 PM

Tipp City, Ohio

"C" could also mean a "cull"

3/9/2004 9:00:27 PM

Nj

I disagree here. The Giant Pumpkin community is not isolated and therefore should maintain terminology similar to that of the rest of the world.

They are clones. Just different clones than what yer all thinkin of. In the same way that George Dufus Bush and John Flip/Flop Kerry are running for president. They're not actually physically running, Bush's knee went bad, and Kerry prefers snowballs and kiteboarding. Nader i say, then we can watch him battle the entire congress. But anywho it is called cloning. It is a plant propogation technique. And yes they are clones. ;)

Here's what websters has to say:
clone ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kln)
n.
A cell, group of cells, or organism that are descended from and genetically identical to a single common ancestor, such as a bacterial colony whose members arose from a single original cell.
An organism descended asexually from a single ancestor, such as a plant produced by layering or a polyp produced by budding.
A DNA sequence, such as a gene, that is transferred from one organism to another and replicated by genetic engineering techniques.
One that copies or closely resembles another, as in appearance or function: “filled with business-school clones in gray and blue suits” (Michael M. Thomas).

v. cloned, clon·ing, clones
v. tr.
1.To make multiple identical copies of (a DNA sequence).
2.To create or propagate (an organism) from a clone cell: clone a sheep.
3.To reproduce or propagate asexually: clone a plant variety.
4.To produce a copy of; imitate closely: “The look has been cloned into cliché” (Cathleen McGuigan).

3/9/2004 9:16:55 PM

Nj

But all in all reality is what we make of it, and languages are just things we make to represent other things.


We might as well just grunt at our plants and zug zug. 5 points for those who got that joke.

lol.

3/9/2004 9:20:30 PM

canal winchester ohio

Ringo Starr....Caveman, a classic

3/9/2004 10:10:20 PM

Sequim, WA

Clone is a bad term for it, cutting is more appropriate and this is a common practice in other horticultural pursuits. If you have a Peace rose in your yard it is from a cutting from Peace rose. The original was grown over 50 years ago and smuggled out of Europe during the second world war. Cuttings were taken from that one plant and every Peace rose in existence is just a perpetuation of that original. Granny Smith apples grow from Granny Smith trees, but nobody who plants a seed from one grows a Granny Smith. Again cuttings and grafting to propogate a winner. AG cuttings are grown one root, without graft so an 801 Stelts is still an 801 Stelts. If you planted the seed and kept the plant alive through the winter and start off with an overwintered cutting, you still have an 801 Stelts. I don't really see a need to differentiate, but if you want to I thing 801 Stelts C for cutting might be more appropriate than anything else I can think of.

3/10/2004 12:02:44 AM

Colo.Spgs.CO. Pikes Peak Chapter @ [email protected]

The goal of vegetative propagation (like cuttings , grafting and tissue culture) is to reproduce progeny plants identical in genotype to a single source plant. the process is known as cloning..... and the resulting population is called a clone..When this process is utilized for the purpose of use as a male pollinator for a plant grown by seed ...I feel the male should still be used in the terminology/text as CLONE...as the text books use 500 x 500 CLONE from?? plant.....I hope I am not too opinionated,,but CLONE IS THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY IN THE PLANT WORLD...I am also a pioneer in the discussion as you will see a picture of me in how to grow /cloning/ the full story/ in pumpkinook.com as I am the true MADMAN MARC clone assistant........Growing is not far away......lol

3/10/2004 6:18:21 AM

Northeast

Do you mean Madman Marc cutting assistant?

3/10/2004 7:28:34 AM

Northeast

Seriously, we have several opinions all of which have good merits and points, which I respect. Can we now agree that any fruit marked xxx C means that the C represents , clone, cutting transplant etc so we all know what the C represents. Yes or No? Dave

3/10/2004 8:03:00 AM

Ljubljana, Slovenia

OK with me. But the cutting is still a clone. Every life that is not sexually reproducing is a clone. Bamboo for example produces clones for several decades then flowers and dies to give room to the “real” offspring. If it would be technically feasible one could clone a human from his leg. Fortunately, this will (most probably) never work. Jernej

3/10/2004 8:57:34 AM

Long Island,New York

Just to be a jerk I ask this question...why do you need to differentiate at all? Call them cuttings, call them clones, it doesn't matter really... for the "fruit records" the genes are the same as the 801.5....the only difference I see is without a proper stump root system the fruits may be smaller and a grower would wanna "explain" why his fruit is small...as some do by saying "grown for genetics only", "grown for pollinator only" etc.. The other reason I see is to protect the rarity of the seed and percieved "value" of the resultant crossed seed..but that can be protected by not giving out clones in the first place. The AGGC has a spot for "remarks" on all thier pumpkin listings where "cuttings" could be listed or any other remark and if the AGGC isn't available to you contact the grower----if you're serious you shouldn't be growing a seed you don't know everything about anyway...email/call/chat with the grower, get a relationship....I've grown "cuttings" for a few years now...cuttings in my vocab is more accurate but clones is whats used more commonly...(I actually got my first successful clone before Marc...hee-hee ...since the sun rises in the east first(hi marc!))...my 1260 clutting is alive and well, when we swapping David?.......G

3/10/2004 9:28:39 AM

Udine, Italy

I think that clone is an appropriate term because DNA is exactly the same in the 801 and in the cutted plants. For plants the propagation with this method seems to be a warranty for maintaining some characteristics (apple trees for ex.). In animal (ex. Dolly), seems that nature doesn’t encourage this kind of propagation, in fact Dolly aged prematurely. With clones we save some plant characteristics but we renounce to breeding improvement.

3/10/2004 9:34:02 AM

Indiana

Glenn,
I think its important to differentiate because of the abilities of the plant grown. For example, I grew a 801.5 C this year, and it was from Clarence's plant that grew his 1049. I dont have AGGC access, so dont quote me, but I believe that is the second largest 801.5 offspring ever. I believe for that reason, that that makes the 801.5 C that I grew, and the resulting seeds better. Which is exactly why I made the 591.5 Beachy 2003. Clarence's plant, crossed with Rock Rivard's 723 that grew his 1178. Both plants went over 1000, and both had perfect shape for not splitting. One of the few unproven seeds that I am going to grow next year.

Tom

3/10/2004 10:52:40 AM

Nj

Cutting, clone, we're all talking about the same thing.
Use or Employ, whichever or whatever, single or individual, term or word, you please or like. ;)

3/10/2004 12:11:15 PM

Long Island,New York

How does 801.5Stelts97(c) differentiate between 801's? You still have to remark that its the one that grew clarences 1049????? To me it just makes things more confusing..801stelts C indicates there was an A and a B...and maybe a D and E and F if there's an 801.5G-garrell.....confusing and unneeded in my opinion. (nice add for your seed though)...G

3/10/2004 3:11:20 PM

Indiana

which pollinator would you rather have, my 801.5 that grew a 400 pounder, or the one that grew clarence's 1049? I got crosses with both.....your pick (your obvious answer will be neither (-:)

Tom

3/10/2004 6:00:00 PM

C N Y

uhhh, i think maybe we should type-out "clone" after the
numbers??? that would solve the problem of what the "c" stands for, or "CL" in CAPS, and gee-golly most of the time people type it out anyway----maybe my 854C Holland is a clone...think i'll ask Joel tomorrow..LOL! being that i don't have any clones of my owns, unfortunately, i don't have to worry about it. how 'bout "CU" for "cutting"!
wish i had an 801---uhhh, let's keep the .5 on there!
ahem...801.5 Stelts anything! clone, SEED! or otherwise-

i think what we refer to as "clones" are actually "cuttings", but i guess a cutting is really no different from a clone, because a clone generally just starts-out as a much smaller unit to begin with, like a single cell of an organism, rather than an entire stalk or stem or root mass........confusing.....aaaarrrgghhh! 'pal2

3/10/2004 7:06:18 PM

northern indiana

Personally I think that for one who is interested in the genetic potential, previous offspring of the same plant would be a deciding factor on choosing seed. I for one agree with Tom. It would be of great interest to me that the clone he used to make a cross had previously grown a 1049. As we have seen not all seeds from a "killer cross" are created equall. Even when they come from the same pumpkin. Who wouldn't want seeds produced by recreating "the" 845 or 723 Bobier from the same 2 plants that gave rise the famous seed in the fist place? A handy way of marking seed as such would make searching for them much easier. Of course it would be up to the grower if the time to mark them as such is worth it.
Marking a seed as a clone would at least tell someone looking for genetics along that seeds line that further investigation is in order.
Eric

3/10/2004 7:33:18 PM

Norton, MA

A few weeks ago I did an experiment with a few test plants. They were all started and all came up at the same time. They were as close in growth stages to each other as was noticable. I had four. I cut them all 2 inches up on the stalk with a sharp clean X-acto knife. I swithed two of them with each other. So stalk and roots of plant A had leaves and top of stalk of plant B and vice-versa. Then I put the top part of C BACK ON TO the bottom part of C. I then put the top o0f D in the soil 1 inch deep. No rooting hormones or anything, just soil. The next evening the results were obvious. The tops of A and B (the swithched ones) had died. The top of C had re-attached and was living. D took a few more days but it rooted well eventually. All these seeds were from the same pumpkin (737.8 Duffy). Two differrent seeds from the same pumpkin (A&B) grafted on to each other died. But C which was grafted back to itself lived. Very interesting. Alex

3/10/2004 7:59:00 PM

Norton, MA

Fourth line down, third word, should be "switched".
Six lines down, second "of" should have only one "o".
8 lines down, second word, should be "switched".

3/10/2004 8:05:21 PM

keep in mind that when you take cuttings of some variegated plants, such as ivy, they can revert back to their all green form. I'm not saying that pumpkins can be variegated...but some genetic switcheroos can occur when you take cuttings. HOWEVER...(I'm not sure on this....) if you take a cutting off a pumpkin that is already rooted at a node, it doens't make sense to me when the genetic alterations would occur, if in fact they do.

3/10/2004 9:22:19 PM

South Hill, Virginia

I don't know enough about this stuff to care but as long as someone somewhere thinks there is a difference in a "clone" and an original then why not denote it? If it's going to be noted then it may as well be simple like the "C" designation or something similar.

3/10/2004 10:12:00 PM

Colorado Hail, CO. Elev. 5,900 FT

Man...are you all just board? (he he he!) I finally have a working puter and come back to all this? Let me complicate things even more (as you should have expected me to jump in here and have fun with this one!}.

The clone plants are actually propagated plants, no... actually propagated pumpkin plants, no... house plant pumpkin cloned cuttings, no...non- single cell DNA reproduced plants, no... original pumpkin plants from the season before, no... the mother plant of the XXX.x fruit, no...the host plant of the XXX.x fruit, no... these are clones made from cuttings, no... they are cuttings that are clones from the XXX.x, no... they are plants from the XXX.x that are clones made by propagating the original plant, no...they are not marijuana clones... YEAH! THEY ARE NOT!
Damn....I guess you can call them anything I listed (or you all listed), but marijuana clones they are not! Does this settle it?

All of you have good points... until growers start doing DNA type clones, call 'em anything you want. To me we all should know what the hell they are from and how they came to be... right ?

BTW... G... I've been messing with the C's over the past few seasons, tricking the plant into developing an actual 'stump' comparative to a non- clone (oops...there is that word again} and after 3 seasons of trial and error I can guarantee there is a method (or two) to get the clone to throw a main root and a 'stump' area. I'll explain all that one day, this is the "Mad Doctors" thread, not the "Mad Mans" thread... Wait now one second...Shouldn't we re define the term 'stump', as pumpkins actually do not have a true stump, as like a tree 'stump', which do have different means of transporting nutrients and water at the 'stump' area, than the pumpkin plants of clones do at their 'stump'....

Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe/ LMAOLOL....

Marc

3/10/2004 11:19:12 PM

Wichita, KS

welcome back madman!

3/11/2004 12:58:34 AM

Colo.Spgs.CO. Pikes Peak Chapter @ [email protected]

finally the madman replies............it's just about growing time thank goodness for the post board.....lol...to get out the ahhhhhhh the pepper seeds i burned myself with cloning/ ahhhhhhhhh...in my face........it burns...

3/11/2004 6:24:38 AM

[email protected]

Stump? Now there's a good one. "Stump" is usually reserved for woody plants possessing bark & anual rings. Trees if we will. Herbaceous plants do not have "stumps". This is probably why cittings don't fair well in performance. The vascular system "wears out", since unlike trees & other higher order perennial plants, our beloved Cucurbita maxima doesn't produce a new vascular system for every new years growth. We can at best select the newest tip of a vine to use as our current seasons planting.

Proper botanical term: "Crown"

For me, the clone versus cutting debate is a tougher one. Technically cuttings are clones. But now that single cell modern tissue culture is in common practice by commercial propagators, we should refrain from using the word "clone". We're not even close to using their advanced laboratory propagation methods.

I vote for the nomenclature change to include "C's" use in the resulting seeds name. With an asterisk* & a footnote on the envelope to indicate the largest pumpkin the cutting was parented from.

Example 801.5 Stelts '97C* (*Garrell 736 '03)

To not name the donor reference might suggest that David Stelts had cloned (DOH!!!)...er....taken a cutting of his famous plant back in '97 & kept it alive all these 7 years.

My two cents.

Steve

3/11/2004 6:57:02 AM

Hilpoltstein, Bavaria, Germany

I totally agree with you, Steve. That would be a bit more to write on the seed envelope but it would give the exact info. And there are really not so many clone seeds so this plus of work should be well worth it...
Martin

3/11/2004 9:03:06 AM

South Hill, Virginia

While we are on it, I also move that "big ass pumpkin" become the standard nomenclature for any pumpkin greater than or equal to 1000 pounds. I have a great deal of scientific blah blah behind this suggestion but I choose to not get into it today:P

3/11/2004 10:46:27 AM

Wichita, KS

Steve
I like your suggestion, but once I looked at the example you gave, I realized the asterisk would confuse me... is it a squash or the largest pumpkin? maybe a #, or "LP" would be better.

Other than that, your post makes a TON of sense.
Toby

3/11/2004 11:58:17 AM

Colorado Hail, CO. Elev. 5,900 FT

They are technically called LImad's.....
LImad?
Glenn Andrews and I both were the first two to actually save a cutting- a clone- a propagated plant- alive for two seasons. The combination of Glenn (LIPumpkin} and Madman is LImad... So there....that settles this discussion. They will be now called LImad's.

3/11/2004 12:35:48 PM

Colorado Hail, CO. Elev. 5,900 FT

Lets face it... Everyone will call them different things, all of which point to the exact same destination source... They are pumpkin plants made from cuttings propagated from a desired plant, which are "clones" of that plant, totally identical to its parent plant, but not derived from single cell modern tissue culture.
As stated, us growers are not going to be rushing out to the labratory to make actual 'clones'(well, you can never tell just what the hell I might do). So long as everyone is clear about how propagation works, and what the plant is (a seed grown plant or a clone of it), then it matters little how we label or define our little critters. I've done them for so damn long that 'clone' seems to fit the shoe just fine.
David, dammit, why do you have to go stirring up everything? Don't you have some body parts to go and sell on the black market to UCLA? LOL....give me a call when you have time...

Madman

3/11/2004 12:36:10 PM

Long Island,New York

They are not "clones" of that plant.....they ARE that plant.....a cutting of the plant.Its not like you took something less than a viable part of a plant and grew it to a viable total....its THE plant !!.....G

3/11/2004 8:15:18 PM

Colorado Hail, CO. Elev. 5,900 FT

Its not THE plant G...as it is not connected to the plant... so it is a 'clone' of the plant, identical to it, but not sharing recources by means of any connecting tissue to THE plant... but yes, they ARE that plant...

I'm making a DNA clone of a plant next winter just to mess eveyone up some more....
Madman

3/11/2004 11:38:04 PM

Indiana

so whats Nick Hamilton's classify as?

3/12/2004 12:42:56 AM

French River,P.E.Island, Canada

Question;;;Is all the male flowers on a specific plant the same....I don't know...

Question;;;Is all the thousands and thousands of pollen grains in 1 flower the same....I don't know

can someone answer this???

...........thanks

3/12/2004 8:49:13 AM

Ljubljana, Slovenia

Pollen grains are regardless of the flower (whenever they originate from the same plant or clone) slightly different.

Every plant has two set sets genes for every trait that originated from mother and father plant.

Imagine mother genes M1M2M3M4M5M6...M10000
And father genes F1F2F3F4F5F6...F10000

When pollen is produced F and M genes are recombined (more or less) by chance to give various combinations of genes.


M1M2M3F4M5F6...F10000, F1M2M3M4F5F6...F10000,...

Pollen like ovules have only one set of genes so when they combine, zygote has two sets and can produce new plant (via seed ofcourse)

Jernej

3/12/2004 9:51:13 AM

Northeast

They are just not clones I agree with G and he with me, so I think that settles it. This has been bugging me I refuse to call them clones which is completely inaccurate I checked with my old botany professor today and despite the dictionaries definition, in a world of true science they aint clones, I challenge anyone to find an expert botanist to disagree. So here we are back to the "C"

3/12/2004 6:02:39 PM

Ljubljana, Slovenia

Biologically cuttings are clones. Many plants use clones to propagate themselves. Potato is one example. Natural plant clones develop from many cells (usually from an individual shoot) but it is also easy to propagate them from a single cell in the laboratory. Most animals do not make clones so you can only clone them if you simulate development of an embryo from a single cell.

Dave, ask the professor if potato tuber produces a clone of it’s mother plant. Anyway, “C” is appropriate because it stands for the same thing: clones and cuttings.
Jernej

3/13/2004 6:54:45 AM

French River,P.E.Island, Canada

Urban Jungle....if you were answering my two Questions above your post I still don't understand it..
All I asked was 2 questions that required 1 of 2 answers,,
Yes,,No,,


thank's ...........Peter

3/13/2004 1:06:25 PM

Ljubljana, Slovenia

Regardless of the flower individual pollen grains differ (1.yes;2.no)

3/14/2004 6:01:20 AM

Colorado Hail, CO. Elev. 5,900 FT

This was an interesting thread.... Now if you excuse me, I have to go tend to my clone, the cutting off the 940 Mombert 98 which grew my 407 last year.

3/14/2004 10:47:10 PM

Long Island,New York

Yes it was...and thanks for reminding me...I have to go tend my 1260Weir cutting...its the same plant that grew my 572 last year....G

3/15/2004 7:44:13 AM

[email protected]

Yes. Good points one & all....Now that LIMad reminded me, I'd best go attend the 845 Bobier '00 UOW (C) (C610 Garrell '03 UOW).

See. No more Asterisk. Is "(C)" OK? With respect to the squashers & all. LOL

Steve

3/15/2004 8:15:54 AM

Long Island,New York

I hereby nominate Steve and David to be the official post-answerers for all nomenclature questions...lol........I hope your ready boys....lol.....we will see this nomenclature topic pop up every single time the C-question comes up.
For example...I just recieved seeds and on the packet it says:675Jepsen04UOW-DMG =845Bobier'00(C)(C610Garrell'03UOW ) x 1260weir01(C)((C572Andrews03*EXH).Whats it mean?Ok...lets get goofy...since theres still 2 months to go....I grow the C-1260 as does 5 others and they get 800-1200lbs on it while I get my typical 550....so now we have 1260Weir01(C-04(gotta have the year on the cutting so we know how much potential age degredation we can expect)yr1-572Andrews03*,yr2600smith04,889jones04*DMG(GPO)(grown for pollen only)1200Pistono04DMG-EST,799Garrell04EXH,and 1100Wisher04) x 801.5Garrell(C)2003(c736Garrell03) .............now. all this info is important cause there's no provisions in aggc or Im guess the other gebetic list being developed for cuttings/clones and since they are usually smaller or for pollen wont make 500 either...plus, one of the major arguments is that a successful seed as a clone is more important we need to distinguish the successes by listing them...even though we all know different growers,climates etc make the seed.(show me a 801.5 that grew 1000lber in wisconsin is better than a 801 that grew a 736 in connecticut....(more)

3/15/2004 9:24:57 AM

Long Island,New York

Look at the only successfull clone sharing adventure with results....the sawtelle experiment with the sherber cutting....some got 500plus...many got less....a wide range in many different situations....how do you draw a conclusion on which seed is better with such variables?....The point is....cutting or clone...theres no need to distinguish it as a (C)since its the same plant and you have to add remarks anyway.......

3/15/2004 9:28:17 AM

French River,P.E.Island, Canada

Urban Jungle .....thank's


............Peter

3/15/2004 10:14:43 AM

Cornwall UK.(50N 5W)300ft.

What do you guys over in the USA call it when you propagate Strawberry plants from runners?
We don't call that a cutting maybe it's just a language difference.lol.

3/15/2004 12:22:17 PM

Wichita, KS

In Watsonville, California, they have labs that clone strawberry plants. They find a plant that they like, splice root tips into quarters, and make 4 plants out of each root tip. They grow that large enough to splice more tips, grow them, splice them, grow them, etc. At this industrial level they call it cloning, although its simply glorified cutting practices under microscopes. This method can produce thousands of plants from a single plant in just a few weeks.

If you have ever seen some of these strawberries, you will know them. They are usually somewhere between 2-4 inches across. I hear from people on the east coast that these strawberries are flavorless and dry, but I think that is due to the trip across the country. On the west coast these clones are big, sweet, and juicy!

I like em.

...Just something else to chew on while we try to make this the longest thread ever.

3/15/2004 1:46:15 PM

Cornwall UK.(50N 5W)300ft.

We call the propagation method with the strawberry runners Layering and guess what I did a search and found that you guys do as well!!
Layering is defined by severing the link from the parent plant after the root system is formed.
Cuttings are pieces of leaves/stem/root severed from the parent plant and a new plant formed afterwards.
We all know this.
So call them what you like but don't call them cuttings.

3/15/2004 2:19:39 PM

Indiana

Who said the 801 from Wisconsin is better than the one from Connecticut? If all goes well, I will be able to tell you that at the end of this season, but who knows right now....LOL Right Nic hehe

3/15/2004 7:29:41 PM

Menomonie, WI ([email protected])

Tom is that Clone, Cutting or whatever whoever wants to call it still kicking from the 801?

3/16/2004 1:11:05 AM

Colorado Hail, CO. Elev. 5,900 FT

"Layering is defined by severing
the link from the parent plant
after the root system is formed."

This would be my recommended method of propagation, as it usually is the most successful. There are two ways though, to propagate the cutting from it's host plant. This is accomplished by the method described below...

"Cuttings are pieces of leaves
/stem/root severed from the
parent plant and a new plant
formed afterwards."

I have also used this method with success, as did Len Stellplug, who grew the "other" clone for the experiment (the 991 Hunt). Before any root system is formed, the tip can be cut away from the host plant, then dusted with a Hormex/ Rootone (or similar product)at the base of the sun leaves, and planted straight into the soil. The cutting has a more degree of stress to deal with, and looses the first couple sub leaves before beginning to vine out, but can be equally successful. I just find it easier to root them first, as the host plant will do most of the work.

"So call them what you like
but don't call them cuttings."

So then... they can be called cuttings... I like the term "clones" though, especially if it gets David going... LMAO!

3/16/2004 10:46:08 PM

Colorado Hail, CO. Elev. 5,900 FT

For the record, the definition of a clone is exactly as 40 OZ (400 Square Feet) stated...

"The goal of vegetative propagation (like cuttings , grafting and tissue culture) is to reproduce progeny plants identical in genotype to a single source plant. the process is known as cloning..... and the resulting population is called a clone."

The above definition is word for word quoted out of, and from, the "Plant Propagation Principals & Practices 7th Edition College Text (2002 Hartman & Hesteis}. I encourge those interested in participating in the joys of 'cloning' to check this book out, or purchase it. The information is overwhelming, but easy to comprehend.
Anyone who has obtained information counter to what my book states, please feel free to post your findings. Perhaps we are all correct here (?), then again...

???

3/16/2004 10:48:03 PM

Ljubljana, Slovenia

An early spring debate on clones:
Every car of a given model with identical equipment is a clone. As every clone these clones degenerate with age so it is necessary to produce new progeny. The progeny is produced “sexually” by recombination of parts from successful models and cloned again… It is better to make new cars then to repair the old ones because the process of building a car eliminates errors (1.) and gives potential for model improvement (2.). The same is in living organisms.

So, I have a question: what are the oldest clones and are they showing any signs of degeneration?
Jernej

3/17/2004 1:16:31 AM

Colo.Spgs.CO. Pikes Peak Chapter @ [email protected]

As the madman posted in the text/definition of clone.. I had posted in a previously posted post was the exact quote from the college text book PLANT PROPAGATION PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES 7TH EDIT.authors Hartman, Kester, Davies, Geneve...A very well written book that I feel can teach a lot of people a lot of good things in the plant world........As I quoted earlier in the 12th post down... I do not want to sound too opinionated, but I hope that what the true professionals are publishing in text is just not a bunch of hogwash.....and is something we all can learn and better our technics from......and as marc said...check it out from your library or purchase it, hope you have time on your hands ( college kids lol.. ) it is big and is not for beginners.....lol..HAPPY GROWING. .. AND OH Plants are not like CARS as in the previous post They don't degenerate unless neglected,as a plant will regenerate many times as a clone if loved and cared for,and propagated for many and all to grow....lol..later.JK.

3/17/2004 3:29:34 AM

Ljubljana, Slovenia

400, true, they are not like cars but they still degenerate if they don’t have sex. Don’t get me wrong: fungi degenerate (especially their mitochondria) if they grow for a long time without sporulation (their kind of sex). It is highly possible that vegetatively propagated pumpkins (clones) also accumulate errors over time. Remember Dolly died young..
Anyway, I am still interested if anybody noticed some kind of degenerations in clones?
Jernej

3/17/2004 12:51:35 PM

Colorado Hail, CO. Elev. 5,900 FT

Jernej;
I cannot say with pumpkins, as they have not been saved for many years, but my buddy who spends all the time at the bar and not the patch {The Eiffler patch), knows a guy that does plant propagation with cannibis, and as kept a strain of super good stuff (so I am told) for 13 'generations'. What we do when propagating pumpkin plants seems similar to what My friends 'Budman' does, so I have no reason to think anything is different other than the species of plant. I have not ever got to discuss with this illegal grower yet, but hope to eventually, at least by phone (LOL). Those growers are always paranoid for some reason... and have red eyes all the time too.....

In the book 40 OZ (400 SF) mentions, degeneration is discussed, but it mentions that only poor climates or poor conditions can actually change the way a clone grows. One example (possibly)... Tom Beachy grew the same damn 746 Scherber everyone else did, and got quite a bit of the squash side of it's traits, and everyone else the same uglyish white-orange looking fruits. Only thing I can figure is climate differences (???). Perhaps G has a theory as to how that happened. I am at a loss on that one. Degeneration due to propagation, though, should not happen.

3/17/2004 10:35:15 PM

Ljubljana, Slovenia

Madman, I agree that degeneration is not due to propagation. Propagation stimulates growth, which is in plants due to activity of meristematic tissue - group of embryonic cells. So whenever plats grow their cells go through embryonic phase. And here is the point of my previous posts: when cells go through embryonic phase they check the functioning of all their programs (written in DNA). Errors (mutations) are eliminated either via repair (of DNA) or by elimination of damaged cells themselves.
So, as long the plant grows the degeneration should be minimal. But, if you have a clone kept for several years with minimal growth in the basement, the degeneration might be higher. Finally, the ultimate (most rigorous) check of an organism (single or multi cellular) is during sexual reproduction. Many plants reproduce mostly vegetatively so it seems that they do not rely vitally on this check.
Now, the spring has arrived and I hope not to bother you any more with such stuff…. Jernej

3/18/2004 2:22:43 AM

Cornwall UK.(50N 5W)300ft.

Viruses are the thing to watch out for with clones.
When I save my own seed potatoes or Leek bulbils I only have 2 or 3 years before they are infected.

3/18/2004 3:21:03 AM