FlyTrapCare Forums

ewertb wrote:How do I label seed grown plants I wish to sell when they exhibit their parents' traits? Do I label them as crosses, e.g. 'B52 x B52'?

They should either carry the name of the specific cross or be given an entirely new name. If they are virtually indistinguishable from the parent plant, then I'd probably give them the name of the specific cross. If they are sufficiently different in some way, I'd probably give them a new name.

This entire debate has me completely confused as I'm trying to apply basic genetics I've learned with my ball pythons (currently over 4600 recognized color and pattern morphs and morph combinations) to VFT's. Or am I wrong in thinking that specific "mutations" we find in VFT's are due to some specific gene, i.e. color gene, length of cilia gene, etc. being of a specific sort, i.e. red or green, long or short, etc.? Or that these genes can be categorized into specific types, i.e. dominant, co-dominant and recessive? Or that, based on this type categorization the offspring can be predicted?

I mean, Mendel started it all using pea plants.

A quick example based on what Matt produced with the 'Mirror' cultivar. It is possible that the Mirror mutations is based on a co-dominant gene. Reason being that Matt produced a super/exaggerated (homogeneous/full) form, aka 'Mirror x Mirror' (http://www.flytrapcare.com/store/venus- ... us-flytrap) by crossing 'Mirror' with 'Mirror'. I'm guessing some of the other plants from that crossing looked like normal 'Mirror' (heterogeneous/half) forms and others like normal flytraps (no 'Mirror' gene present). Possibly the same with the 'Werewolf Spawn' (http://www.flytrapcare.com/store/venus- ... us-flytrap). So yes, they are each genetically unique but exhibit the mutation/cultivar gene that makes them what we call them.

Recessives seems to be where this debate derails as the 1st generation (heterogeneous) recessives, if not self-pollinated, does not show the mutation. People seems to therefor believe that seed grown does not create more of a cultivar. Cross this 1st generation offspring with each other or back to the parent and in all likelihood some of this 2nd generation offspring will exhibit the mutation in question. Self pollinating should in theory give 100% the same but there are exceptions as well (higher level genetics than what I know...) that "are, but do not act as what they are".

Dionaea, like any other living organism should follow the same genetic rules and I therefore believe that a seed grown that displays the same traits as the parent should be be labeled/named as such.

ewertb wrote:Recessives seems to be where this debate derails as the 1st generation (heterogeneous) recessives, if not self-pollinated, does not show the mutation. People seems to therefor believe that seed grown does not create more of a cultivar. Cross this 1st generation offspring with each other or back to the parent and in all likelihood some of this 2nd generation offspring will exhibit the mutation in question. Self pollinating should in theory give 100% the same but there are exceptions as well (higher level genetics than what I know...) that "are, but do not act as what they are".

Dionaea, like any other living organism should follow the same genetic rules and I therefore believe that a seed grown that displays the same traits as the parent should be be labeled/named as such.

I think you need to look at the DNA, a VFT is diploid. That means it's 32 chromosomes are paired up to get 16 pairs. Pollen thus have 16 chromosomes, and the egg cell will get 16 chromosomes. Each of the 16 of each type are a random pick from the parents cells (one randomly picked from each pair). When you self pollinate a VFT each resulting pair has the following odds. 50% - Same as the parent, 25% - chromosome 1 doubled, 25% - chromosome 2 doubled (or 50% of the time a chromosome gets doubled). The odds that the seed is the same as it's parent are 1 in 65,536 (actually slightly lower due to mutations).

Self pollinating a plant has a very high chance of doubling a chromosome, and with it any mutation contained in that chromosome. When pollinating with some unrelated plant, there is a very low chance that any of the chromosomes have the same mutations (they'll have a mutation in different spots). Thus generally both parents pass on their recessive traits but the child generally only shows the dominant traits. However when you double a chromosome (from self pollinating) it essentially guarantees that the mutation will show (it brings out all those recessive traits). When we think of VFT cultivars, what we really care about are how it looks, and that it keeps those traits.

Most of the noteworthy traits are rare because they are recessive. Thus if you want something with the most rare traits you'd take two typicals, with lots of random genes, cross them to get a child with a big mix of genes, and then self pollinate the child to get children that show many of the recessive traits of both grandparents. Thus self-pollinating should give you genetically similar children, but also the most "new cultivar" worthy children. This is also why you shouldn't marry your sister, it makes a lot of funky deformities. Good for selling VFTs, bad for your child.

My typical has VERY large traps for it’s age(i think). It surpasses young DC XL

Edit: But DC XL grows faster and bigger

This is the best thing I've currently read on vft cultivation. Thanks

ewertb wrote:This entire debate has me completely confused as I'm trying to apply basic genetics I've learned with my ball pythons (currently over 4600 recognized color and pattern morphs and morph combinations) to VFT's. Or am I wrong in thinking that specific "mutations" we find in VFT's are due to some specific gene, i.e. color gene, length of cilia gene, etc. being of a specific sort, i.e. red or green, long or short, etc.? Or that these genes can be categorized into specific types, i.e. dominant, co-dominant and recessive? Or that, based on this type categorization the offspring can be predicted?

I mean, Mendel started it all using pea plants.

A quick example based on what Matt produced with the 'Mirror' cultivar. It is possible that the Mirror mutations is based on a co-dominant gene. Reason being that Matt produced a super/exaggerated (homogeneous/full) form, aka 'Mirror x Mirror' (http://www.flytrapcare.com/store/venus- ... us-flytrap) by crossing 'Mirror' with 'Mirror'. I'm guessing some of the other plants from that crossing looked like normal 'Mirror' (heterogeneous/half) forms and others like normal flytraps (no 'Mirror' gene present). Possibly the same with the 'Werewolf Spawn' (http://www.flytrapcare.com/store/venus- ... us-flytrap). So yes, they are each genetically unique but exhibit the mutation/cultivar gene that makes them what we call them.

Recessives seems to be where this debate derails as the 1st generation (heterogeneous) recessives, if not self-pollinated, does not show the mutation. People seems to therefor believe that seed grown does not create more of a cultivar. Cross this 1st generation offspring with each other or back to the parent and in all likelihood some of this 2nd generation offspring will exhibit the mutation in question. Self pollinating should in theory give 100% the same but there are exceptions as well (higher level genetics than what I know...) that "are, but do not act as what they are".

Dionaea, like any other living organism should follow the same genetic rules and I therefore believe that a seed grown this displays the same traits as the parent should be be labeled/named as such.

It's a true, but anyway, there are a lot of exceptions