CanadianJim
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but I have to disagree on one point, chemical manipulation would do diddly squat without the DNA to make pollen, so in the sense of having that "male" DNA it did come from a hermaphrodite. The female plant has to have that DNA for feminized seeds to exist. There is also the issue that the op is concerned that his new pants will grow balls, however since the original plant required stress to show hermaphroditic traits and pollinate itself, and the new plants are so far growing fully female (if I understand the original post) he shouldn't have anything to worry about without putting a stressor on the plants.I'm not sure about all this hermaphrodite stuff. I've never had anything good come from keeping them, and i've kept a few.
Sure, if you can bare the seeds, or be vigilant enough to remove all the balls, then fair enough, take it to harvest.
But they're impractical and a huge gamble for future seed. If you have access to other seeds use those instead, you're mad not to.
For what it's worth, feminised seeds didn't come from a hermaphrodite plant, they came from a female. Without chemical manipulation it simply wouldn't happen. True female plants don't possess the right chromosomes to do so, they need a pollen donor, or manipulation. It isn't something that can happen naturally.
Hermaphrodite plants possess both male and female chromosomes, this is what allows them to reproduce on their own.
Before people jump down my throat for disagreeing, look for the term Rhodelization in anything botanical from a reputable source, and not from a cannabis website. It's very hard to find and to be honest, i'm not sure i've ever found it at all. As far as i'm aware, it isn't a botanical term, but a cannabis growing one.
Look at the term dichogamy in botany, hermaphrodite plants can be sequential as well. Meaning those late flower balls are still balls, and the plant still had to possess xy chromosomes to do so. Hermaphrodite plants inflorescence can be complete or partial as well.
Is it really such a stretch to assume all plants that show both sexual organs and can reproduce on their own naturally, aren't hermaphrodite in the first place? The opposite would seem extremely hard to prove.