What does true to parent mean?

[TooCoys]

When people say that plants from seeds aren’t “true to parent”, what does that mean?

In my mind I assume that it’s kinda like cross breeding chickens, in that the chicks will be chickens but may not look just like the parents.

Is that a correct analogy?

 

[0soyoung]

Yes, that is it.

I had an acer shirasawanum 'Golden Full Moon'. It had seeds that I gathered, sprouted and planted. The seed 'children' are also acer shirasawanum, but the foliage is nothing like that of Golden Full Moon = NOT true to parent.

I have a red acer plamatum dissectum in my yard. I've grown seeds from it. The seed 'children' have the same red dissectum leaves, just like mom = true to parent.

 

[cbroad]

Yeah, that's basically right. If you're talking about seedlings, it means the offspring may not be exactly like the parent plant the seeds came from. I think using punnett squares, there's a 25% chance it will come true to type (but that's a very elementary way of explaining it).

 

[Bonsai Nut]

It's like having two dogs. If you breed the dogs, they won't be true to parent - they will be a blend of the genetics of both animals. If you CLONE the two dogs - the clones will be true to parent

Not exactly a perfect description (mammals versus plants) but it gives you the general idea

 

[TN_Jim]

Some plants are self-compatible (flowers can make love to themselves and produce viable seed). Some such species are known as 'true-breeding'. This is when offspring from a selfed flower consistently produces ~genetically identical seeds, which develop into plants with the same traits and alleles. Take pollen from a different tree and fertilize a flower (or female cone) and this all falls apart.

 

[TooCoys]

Some plants are self-compatible (flowers can make love to themselves and produce viable seed).

As in the pine with a male cone and a female cone that are pollinated by the wind?

 

[TN_Jim]

As in the pine with a male cone and a female cone that are pollinated by the wind?

With conifers this is different, because they do not have flowers, they’re gymnosperms (=naked seed, no protection from ovary or fruit).

To my knowledge there are no cones that are hermaphroditic, they are either male (usually smaller) or female -so, even if two cones are on the same tree (same parent), this is not the same as a single flower with both sexes present (pistol and stamen aka a “complete or “perfect flower).

Here’s the caveat, for a flower to truely ‘self’, male gametes (pollen) should come from the exact same flower as the female gametes (ovules in base of pistol)....such fertilization will increase the likelihood of “true breeding”.....however, if pollen from a different flower or cone on the same plant reaches ovules from a different flower/cone (same plant) the potential for “true breeding” is definitely still there....
...what I’m getting at super technically is that not all flowers or cones from the same plant will have the same genetic makeup/alleles/traits/morphology/etc...so I believe a true ‘selfing’ single flower has homologous genes and therefore an increased likelihood of being the truest natural offspring of the parent plant..

That’s long winded technical shit, but to be clear terms-wise, I think any single flowering plant that can produce viable seed from only gametes from the same plant -even gametes from different flowers!...is still concitered to be a self-compatible species.

Further down the rabbit hole...this is not to say that conifers have less of a likelihood of seeds (produced from same tree-monoecious) that will mirror the parent plant exactly....because plants are messed up, they don’t always have two sets of chromosomes (ploidy; 2n) like us, they can have 16 to 64+..(or even odd #, see cloning cholo cactus in Joshua tree)..more/different/heterozygous possible genes mixed into the seed soup.....I believe this is why if you plant 100 apple seeds, it’s likely that all of the apples will be totally different (apples=family Roseaceae=always hermaphroditic flowers).

 

[TN_Jim]

...ok, apples were a stretch bad example to the point (usually two sets of chromosomes ((some 3??)).

Common potato..4 sets. Why do this? Why is this good evolutionarily?It decreases the likelihood of deleterious alleles that could lead to inbreeding depression among plant populations.

 

[TN_Jim]

...ok, apples were a stretch bad example to the point (usually two sets of chromosomes ((some 3??)).

Common potato..4 sets. Why do this? Why is this good evolutionarily?It decreases the likelihood of deleterious alleles that could lead to inbreeding depression among plant populations.

worm and rabbit holes...gettin some strange

geitonogamy
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[0532:COAAGT]2.0.CO;2

 

[bonsai-ben]

Ok lets just put it in easier terms.

There's weed. And there's lots of strains.

Got it?