Clarification on what an R2 cross is?
- Thread starter ImpulsiveGrower
- Start date
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Please define a "selfed female sibling", because your diagram does not show a S1 (selfed female) crossed with an F1. Your use of the terminology is adding unnecessary confusion to the discussion.
xtsho
Well-Known Member
The issue is that R1 is something that some stoner made up. It either started with an interview in High Times or some seed company. There is no actual scientific classification of R1 that has been done by any person with any actual plant science credentials nor has it been accepted by anyone outside of cannabis circles.
Lots of stuff is just made up these days and then everyone runs with it. Hell most people consider a sativa to be a plant with narrow leaves when in fact the name cannabis sativa was first used in the 1700's to name Hemp. When dealing with cannabis as a plant you can basically toss the normal rules out the window.
When I take 2 clones, reverse one and pollinate the other I consider it an S1. Until R1 is documented somewhere with more credibility than a seed company or High Times magazine I won't use it except when discussing a topic it comes up in on the cannabis forums because apparently many have adopted it's use.
Lots of stuff is just made up these days and then everyone runs with it. Hell most people consider a sativa to be a plant with narrow leaves when in fact the name cannabis sativa was first used in the 1700's to name Hemp. When dealing with cannabis as a plant you can basically toss the normal rules out the window.
When I take 2 clones, reverse one and pollinate the other I consider it an S1. Until R1 is documented somewhere with more credibility than a seed company or High Times magazine I won't use it except when discussing a topic it comes up in on the cannabis forums because apparently many have adopted it's use.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
No, you show a female F1 crossed with another female F1, which has been reversed. That isn't selfing.
You did draw selfed individuals too,but you didn't cross them with anything:
ALPHA.GanjaGuy
Well-Known Member
Just to put it out there @mudballs explanations do a fantastic job of cleaning up what was muddy (happy accident pun?) regarding R1/R2 for me.
It may be semi 'bro science', and I believe Ethos are the only breeder I have seen use the term but still, I can apply what mudballs said and look at Ethos's strains and it lines up and finally makes them make sense perfectly to me.
IMO it appears Ethos was using the term R1 to be honest about the genetic roots of the strain rather than taking the lazier route and calling an R1 an S1 as there is a different plant getting the self-ed/feminized pollen, not the reversed plant or clone of the reversed plant but a female sibling
It may be semi 'bro science', and I believe Ethos are the only breeder I have seen use the term but still, I can apply what mudballs said and look at Ethos's strains and it lines up and finally makes them make sense perfectly to me.
IMO it appears Ethos was using the term R1 to be honest about the genetic roots of the strain rather than taking the lazier route and calling an R1 an S1 as there is a different plant getting the self-ed/feminized pollen, not the reversed plant or clone of the reversed plant but a female sibling
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
You still haven't shown anything fertilized by the S1's in your chart, so I'm not understanding your point. I think that you are using the term "selfed", when you should be calling them "reversed females". I realize that we're arguing semantics, but when doing so it's important to be clear and specific in the terminology and usage. "Selfed" offspring are that of genetically identical P1's, they are not reversed female plants.
As far as P1's, any plant can be a P1, if it's one of the parental starting points in your breeding project.
mudballs
Well-Known Member
"selfed", when you should be calling them "reversed females
Reversed means you grabbed pollen from a female dioecious plant yes? but it doesnt denote you applied that pollen to the very plant you harvested it from. Why would i show something being polinated by an S1 in my drawing if the topic is the R2.i think ur just trying to insert some sort of correct stance on your part to avoid being incorrect
Reversed means you grabbed pollen from a female dioecious plant yes? but it doesnt denote you applied that pollen to the very plant you harvested it from. Why would i show something being polinated by an S1 in my drawing if the topic is the R2.i think ur just trying to insert some sort of correct stance on your part to avoid being incorrect
ALPHA.GanjaGuy
Well-Known Member
I believe (and I could be wrong) but the way I understand what was said is the term selfed is being used to say female plant, reversed then 'self' pollinated ie either the same plant or a clone of that plant.
While reversed I would take as the beginning of the R1, you reverse the female but instead of pollinating the same plant or a clone of it you pollinate one of it's siblings
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
I'm just trying to follow along with your argument, specifically this point:
As I've mentioned a couple of times, your chart doesn't show any S1's crossed with an F1, hence my confusion. Are you making this discussion intentionally difficult?
At any rate, there's some good reading in the attached document, which I think may offer you some new perspectives on how you are looking at the matter. Here's a peek at the abstract:
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
That's also how I follow, but personally I would call it an F1 not an R1, only because I don't think R1 is a real thing.
I mean what happens in nature when dioecious plants reverse sex naturally, is that not a continuance of an in-bred line (IBL), which by definition are the generations past F4/F5?
mudballs
Well-Known Member
But pj i honestly dont know what that would be called...they may qualify as F2's...they may also qualify as RIL...im not sure.im no authority i just wanted to help on the R2 thing cuz it was easy
ALPHA.GanjaGuy
Well-Known Member
No disrespect but I am baffled why you would call it an F1.
At that point you would have people argue that an S1 is also an F1 and really F1 loses meaning at that point..
I would only call a plant an F1 if the two parents are different strains.
R1 although made up potentially, actually does a great job of cleaning up the confusion and leaving a genetic cookie trail to follow back helping to preserve some sanity and cleanliness (if you will) in the entire process.
Also as far as I know @mudballs didn't come up with R1 they were just helping add some understanding.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
You'd call it a back-cross (BX1).
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
I would call it an F1 because that's what the science of plant breeding dictates. R1 isn't in the scientific breeding community's vernacular, it's a cannabis pollen chucker's term.
A plant would be an F1 even if from the same strain, that's how you begin to produce IBL lines.
The difference between an S1 and a F1 is that the S1 only has a single parent (P1xP1), whereas a F1 or a R1 (if you choose to use that term) has two distinctly different parents (P1xP2). Therefore S1 and F1 are fundamentally genetically different in nature. A R1 is fundamentally not genetically different than a F1.
mudballs
Well-Known Member
No i wouldnt id call an F1 by ur entire day of arguing
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
If you want to get nit-picky, it would likely be both since any cross between P1 & P2 is a F1, but using the BX identifier provides more information.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
True. All the lines on your paper got confusing, especially once you started modifying it, so I mis-read. It's not a BX, you are correct.