Return to the Daylily Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Hybridizing patterns

Posted by swontgirl_z5a 5a (My Page) on
Mon, Jan 28, 13 at 11:26

Hi,
Just wondering if we can get scientific here for a minute?
I have a question about patterned daylilies and I know some of you on this forum know about them! I could ask privately but then the rest of you wouldn't benefit from the answer!
I believe you need to cross a pattern with a pattern to get patterned offspring. (Is this a dominant recessive thing?) But if you cross a pattern to a non pattern can the trait still be hiding in there somewhere? Can it show up in the next generation if you do a sibling cross of the non patterned offspring or breed said offspring back to a pattern?
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Debbie


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

Using both patterned parents would very likely result in patterned offspring. Patterns are recessive. If you do out-cross to a non-patterned flower, each of the seedlings would have the patterned gene, although most likely suppressed (not visible) in this generation. Crossing these seedlings back to the patterned parent or to themselves will result in a predictable number of patterned offspring. The number would depend on who they were crossed with and whether you're dealing with diploids or tetraploids. I would suggest out-crossing to an eyed or banded flower, rather than a self, to achieve quicker results.
Ed


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

You dont necessarily need to cross a pattern onto a pattern to get a pattern. If the genes are there they will come back out.

Someone on Mydaylilies said that Bob F. said that he got some of his first patterns by using bi-tones with green throats and watermarked eyes. I dont know if that means he crossed the two together. The same person also said you can also use varieties with blue in the eye zone.


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

These are a few examples of what can happen. These were started from seed in 2011 and bloomed in 2012. Some showed the pattern and others did not.

GET JIGGY X SPACECOAST BUTTERFLY EFFECT
GET JIGGY X SPACECOAST BUTTERFLY EFFECT photo GETJIGGYXSPACECOASTBUTTERFLYEFFECT4.jpg

GET JIGGY X SPACECOAST BUTTERFLY EFFECT photo GETJIGGYXSPACECOASTBUTTERFLYEFFECT1.jpg

GLORY TO HIS NAME X GET JIGGY
GLORY TO HIS NAME X GET JIGGY photo GLORYTOHISNAMEXGETJIGGY4.jpg

GLORY TO HIS NAME X GET JIGGY photo GLORYTOHISNAMEXGETJIGGY3.jpg

POLSTON PINK SEEDLNG X KALEIDOSCOPIC INTRIGUE
POLSTON PINK SEEDLING X KALEIDOSCOPIC SEEDLING 2011 photo POLSTONPINKSEEDLINGXKALEIDOSCOPICINTRIGUE4.jpg

POLSTON PINK SEEDLING X KALEIDOSCOPIC INTRIGUE SEEDLING 2011 photo POLSTONPINKSEEDLINGXKALEIDOSCOPICINTRIGUE7.jpg

PPS X KI photo PPSXKI.jpg

Julia


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

wow, Julia, I just love them las two babie. very pretty ones.

jean


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

Thanks Jean. I was hoping when I bought these seed crosses I would have gotten more pattern in the kids but as you can see, some did and some didn't. I had 10+ kids from each cross when I planted them out. About 1/3 bloomed of each cross. Possibly the milder winter we had in 2011/2012 added to the equation but this year....well, we shall see what survives our near zero temps.

Julia


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

Love that color on the second baby of the first cross.
kay


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

So...
Patterns are recessive and can hide in the genetics. Would it be safe to say that you need eye or watermarked genetics to get patterns? Like Ed said cross to an eyed(or I assume watermarked) daylily instead of a self? Maybe watermarks are better as the darker eye may hide the pattern?
Debbie


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

If I was trying to make a pattern from non-patterned parents, I would cross an eye to a watermarked eye. A band to an eye, one of which is watermarked would also be a good choice. I suggest to those hybridizing for patterns to choose parents that do not have the petal canoeing problem that many patterned daylilies have. I personally think it is bad form.
Ed


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

I like that first one Julia but the rest seem to have lost their pattern.
That is interesting Ed. There also seem to be lots of muddy coloured ones around. I don't quite understand this as there are ones that aren't muddy available, but as an experienced hybridizer told me patterns are still in their infancy so things will get better.
I have been following the series of Patterned articles in the Daylily Journal with interest. Many of what they have shown I don't think are patterns. To me a spider or unusual form daylily is going to have a different shaped eye because of it's petal shape. That doesn't indicate a pattern to me. A chevron on a round daylily is a kind of pattern I guess but not on a narrow form bloom. That's just the shape the eye is.
I am interested in patterns or complex eye patterns on narrow form daylilies. There aren't many around so it means creating a patterned eyezone using patterned round formed flowers and non patterned narrow forms. That's why I am wondering about the second generation. Is it in there somewhere? As well many narrow forms have such large throats or eyes that I think the pattern would get lost. So I think a quite tidy neat eye or watermark would work better to put the pattern on.
This is a seedling that bloomed for me last summer. I liked it but it was a muddy purple colour. I also didn't like the veining. I have selected it to see what it looks like this year. I do like the patterned eye.


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

Good posts, both of the above! Lots of agreement here.

I too read the pattern articles in the journal and thought "Really? That's a 'pattern?' about some of the categories.

Nate


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

Thanks Nate. I am glad I am not the only one. I was really confused about some of them. Wild & Wonderful is one of my favorite daylilies but does it really exhibit a bold pattern?
I guess it depends on what you are talking about. Its seems they are reinventing the wheel in a way. I know there are new things happening with patterns but I think most of them could be described fairly easily using the old definition with a few tweaks.
If you are talking about color patterns then I think selfs, bicolors and bitones are still patterns as well as eyed or watermarked but now they are out. Now patterned means you have to go beyond that. Maybe a new word is needed for that beyond situation- not changing what patterned means. What is wrong with the color patterns Stout described?
I think what I am talking about with my hybridizing are complicated patterns(there's that word again) in the eyezone of a daylily like concentric rings etc. I think this should be a sub section of eyed daylilies which to me is already the pattern, Other subsections of eyes could be chevrons or feathered or maybe even appliqued.
It has gotten way to complicated as everyone needs their own name to describe what they have created!
Debbie


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

Definitely an interesting eye in your seedling Debbie. I don't know how well it will carry over into future generations. I have always felt patterns were more interactions between things than traits that could be refined with in-breeding. To me, patterns began back in the '80s with PAPER BUTTERFLY and then on to GERDA BROOKER. At least in tets. GB is a good study I think. Jack Carpenter and Leon Payne did lots of things with diploids, and most of the current stuff can be traced back to their work.
Good luck with your seedling above. It's a long but fun journey.
Ed


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

Debbie (SWOntario girl) ... Great thread you started here. Enjoying this one very much. 'Patterns' are one of the interesting tangents of our pastime/pursuit. I DO like what you've developed in the photo above. Pleased to know that you're a fellow Region #4 breeder.

ED (xokientx) - Very much enjoy your comments on this & other threads. Thx for sharing ... You've apparently direct access to a trove of historical facts & experiences that benefit us all. Especially find the comments above about Leon Payne & Jack Carpenter & earlier diploids of interest. My personal interest has been focused on dips for some time. Like Debbie above, a good part of my interest in collecting, breeding and growing daylilies lies in the research & the 'academic' side of this hobby (That word always sounds 'juvenile' to me ... 'A wee boy & his hobby ...')(Perhaps because it's close to the truth ...? )Anyway, as said, 'Interesting thread.' ... This does help to pass thru winter with some meaningful & beneficial informations.

Thx MGP


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

Hey Ed,
Why do you think it wouldn't pass on? Is there any way to help that happen?
Thanks MGP. I am trying to get organized this year and do some more planned crosses! I have looked through my seedlings and my registered cultivars to see what I might use to develop some more patterned eyes in narrow forms. I have several round forms with patterned eyes but it seems you have to make many seeds to get a narrow formed offspring. Round form seems to be dominant.
I do have Magnificent Hummingbird and it flowered last year but it is a Tet and I need a dip for this seedling. I will use it with other tets I have.
Hence the question. I am just wondering if there might be patterned eye genetics hiding in some of the non patterned seedlings I have from patterned parents.
Debbie


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

Thanks MGP :0)

Debbie,
What I'm saying is that the flower probably won't pass on its pattern, but it may pass on the trait of patterning. I think the resulting pattern is a fairly unique interaction of the patterns of its parents.
Ed


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

That's interesting Ed. Would that mean there is no predictability about the kind of patterned eye when breeding for patterns?
Debbie


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

Jeff Salter suggested to James Gossard to cross reds into the patterned flowers to get a better patterned flower.

Look at Dragonfly In Flight it has Red Eyed Dynamite in it's parantage. Bob says that DIF passes the pattern on.

Debbie you may also want to try and backcross to the parent of your seedling to make the pattern stronger.


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

That's interesting Joe.
You're talking about red eyes not red daylilies right? When I look up an image of Red Eyed Dynamite it looks like there is a bit of a lighter color inside the main red eye so does it have a pattern already?
Dragonfly in Flight is interesting in that the pattern is only on the sepals. I have looked at my photos of S. David Kirchhoff and Alpine Mist. AP definitely has the eye on the sepals but I can't see any sepals in my photos of SDK. As with many Henry daylilies the petals overlap so much you can't see the tepals where there would be an eye. I will have to look at it closer this summer. I did find a photo I took of S. Tee Tiny where 2 petals have been chewed on or something and an eye is visible on the tepal. There probably is an eye on most of the tepals of the Siloam eyed cultivars, the petals just match up so well to make such a nice eye you never need to look behind them.
I will have to see what I have that has a red eye and is narrower. Patricia Snider Memorial might be the closest I have but maybe more pink than red. It's not patterned that I can see. I got it last year to use on a pink eyed cream/white seedling I have. But this might be good too. Wonder if it would clean up the muddy purple colour?


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

Interesting thread indeed. Patterns tend to confuse people a lot. Perhaps because it's not easy to put one's finger on every daylily and say whether or not it really 'is' a pattern. When I headed up the committee for the AHS to come up with a valid description of a pattern daylily it took a year and some of the best hybridizers for patterns there were. Carpenter, Morss, myself,Mussar, and a couple others and we had some heavy and heated discussions about what should be incorporated into the description of a pattern daylily. When the dust settled we all felt we would better do the society a favor by not getting too specific and leaving the definiton more general. We have no idea what cool stuff is still coming down the pike. I think we did the society a favor, time will tell. My first cross for patterns was "Dragons' Eye" from Liz Salter because I knew it would occasionally throw a pattern and "Elsie Spalding". It showed a bit of a patterned eye, however small way down in the center. I liked both these flowers because they held up all day, every flower was good every day, they had the form I liked. Out of 125 seedlings one showed pattern and the form I wanted. I called it "white pat" and from it came all my patterned daylilies. I crossed WP to anything that looked like not a totally solid eye and by the third year I bloomed 12 daylilies of distinct pattern and it was then I knew all my 'suspicions' were correct and I was on the right path. I did not know at the time, nor did anyone that I know of that patterns were recessive so the best way to get them was to cross two together. In speaking with Jack Carpenter about that he feels that after several generations of pattern to pattern the possiblity of getting patterns even when crossed to non-pattern increases exponetially as the patterns deepen in the family tree. I have not proven that myself as I only do pattern to pattern. Steve Muldovan taught me that watermarks can act as a blank slate in about 5-10% of the offspring you will get what the non-watermark parent is. So pattern to watermark can give you a limited amount of pattern offspring. However you get them, patterns will continue to be fascinating and fun to breed. The R.W. Munson Jr. Award for best pattern daylily was chosen by Mr. Munson himself. This was relayed to me by Ted Petit, who was on that committee. They finally asked Munson what award he would like named for himself. "Patterns of course" which caught the group offguard. "The reason is that in any flower genre' there comes a time when it seems everything is done, and that genre' begins to deteroriate. I feel with patterns that daylilies will not only thrive much longer but perhaps the patterns will keep them in favor for many, many more years." Smart guy that Munson was.
So anyhow, thanks for letting me jump in here and tell you all what I know. Best to you all....
~~~~Bob Faulkner
PS---I have attached a seedling photo of what I think we will see coming down the pike soon....exciting stuff


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

Thanks for your input Bob. Really cool seedling-just what I like!
I know you were on the committee as was fellow ODS member Dave Mussar. I think Patterns confuse people because the term pattern, as used by Stout to describe colour patterns in daylilies, is now being used to describe these complex designs we find in eyes. I don't know if you guys were in on writing the articles in the Journal(which aren't finished) but they didn't explain things the way my brain sees it. I really enjoyed them and I loved all the pictures but it seemed kind of in random order for me.
You say you only breed patterns to patterns. So you have never crossed 2 non patterned offspring that each have one patterned parent (other than when you started)?
It is interesting what Jack Carpenter says about getting patterns from a cross of pattern with non pattern after many generations. That suggests that patterns do not entirely follow dominant or recessive genetics. We have seen the same thing here with our cattle breeding. After many generations the maternal traits that we have kept selecting for are strong enough that they keep coming through no matter what bull we use. The best "Daddy" is the one who will add that little bit extra you are looking for and leave all the maternal traits that you want to keep.
Do you agree with Ed (if I have understood him correctly) that the patterns are unpredictable but the tendency to pattern is what gets passed on? I can see this for complex eyes but something like stripes must be simpler than that. I had some seedlings out of Pink Stripes and a plain white pod parent. I had some striped offspring that I kept and some plain ones that I didn't keep. So not completely dominant or recessive but the stripes I got were like the parent. This has also made me wonder about crossing patterns with whites. Does the white background act like a blank canvass as well?
I think Patterned eyes may turn up with eyed partners just like watermarks but you can't see them because they eye is too dark. Maybe the watermark is just light enough to show the pattern. I love watermarks and find them much more attractive than eyes so will enjoy trying more of that in the future.
Thanks again for sharing your expertise. I enjoyed your presentation at the Can-am in 2011. You have certainly developed some amazing daylilies!

Debbie


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

James Gossard and Kim McCutcheon Used Heavenly Spider Monkey for the red parent. You probably could use any red parent if you made a-lot of seeds or made a long cross.

Heavenly Spider monkey goes back to Wildest Dreams , so WD would add to the pattern.


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

I love the first picture and the seedling from Bob. Wow it's like looking into a kaleidoscope.


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

It seems to me anyway that while tets are (for now)looking at mainly physical traits (teeth, sculpting, etc)the diploids have advanced more quickly with patterns. Is this because of the simpler genetics? Is this also why I have not found a diploid with "teeth" at least like we know of in tets?

Great post for us beginners!

David


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

Whenever we look at colour in a daylily flower we have problems.

The first problem is that our eyes are not very good at distinguishing many differences in the amount of pigment we see. As one example, researchers have found that if one flower is red and has 100 units of pigment and another flower is red but has only 65 units of pigment we cannot distinguish them as being different. So if we had a flower that had alternating stripes of dark red (100 units) next to stripes of lighter red (65 units) we would not see the pattern with our unaided eyes.

Another problem is that we cannot easily see all the pigments present in flowers. There is a group of pigments, flavonols, that are lightly coloured but that are extremely important because when they are present with anthocyanins they change the colour of the anthocyanin pigments. Those types of pigments are present in daylily flowers and we often cannot see them. So a pattern in a daylily flower with stripes of a flavonol beside stripes of no pigment would not be seen with our unaided eyes. If that same pattern was overlaid with anthocyanin pigment the two types of stripes would appear as two different colours and be likely to be visible to our unaided eyes.

The end result is that most of our conclusions about the genetics of patterns (of all sorts, including eyes, picotees, etc) are not really about patterns but are about the inheritance of visible pigments. For example, it has been thought that eyes are inherited as dominants in daylilies. For that to be the case there must be genetically eyed and genetically non-eyed daylily cultivars. However, all daylily cultivars examined have eyes. In the yellows, near-whites, light pink 'selfs' and light lavender 'selfs' the eyes are caused by the flavonols [and anthocyanins when the growing conditions change the concentrations] and can be seen when the cultivars are photographed in ultraviolet light or when stained with chemicals that make the flavonols visible to the unaided eye. In the dark intensely coloured red and purple 'selfs' the eyes become visible when the growing conditions change the concentrations of anthocyanin pigments in the flowers. What is inherited as a 'dominant' is the ability to make anthocyanins versus the inability to make them not the presence or absence of eyes..

Yet another problem is that most characteristics are not inherited simply in daylilies. Most cannot be described as simply dominant or recessive. Most characteristics, including those affecting the colour and pigments in the flowers are inherited quantitatively and are affected by many genes. When a characteristic is inherited quantitatively one cannot easily predict whether a cross will produce seedlings that show the characteristic or do not show it or in what proportions. For patterns the difficulty is caused by classifying cultivars as patterned or not patterned. In practice patterned plants can be further classifed by the stability of the pattern, the intensity of colour in the patterns, the width of the different parts of the pattern, the number of stripes, rings, etc. in the pattern and so on. All those characteristics may affect the chance that visible patterns appear in seedlings of crosses.

In quantitative inheritance a patterned daylily whose pattern appeared infrequently crossed with a yellow would probably produce no seedlings with visible patterns (to our unaided eyes). However, a cross of a daylily whose pattern appeared frequently and was stable with the same yellow might produce at least some seedlings that were patterned although their patterns might be unstable. A patterned daylily whose pattern was light lavender crossed with a near-white might produce no seedlings with a visible pattern. A cross of a patterned daylily whose pattern was very dark lavender with the same near-white might produce some seedlings with a pattern. Crosses of lightly coloured patterned daylilies with darkly coloured cultivars might seldom produce seedlings with visible patterns simply because our eyes could not distinguish differences between different concentrations or intensities of pigment when they are high on average.

The same sort of explanation applies to picotees. A cultivar with a wide deeply coloured picotee crossed with a non-picoteed plant might produce some picoteed seedlings. A cross of a cultivar with a narrow lightly coloured picotee crossed with the same non-picoteed plant would probably not produce any visibly picoteed seedlings.

Maurice


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

Thanks Maurice,
This is so interesting. If I understand you correctly you do think dark colours can hide patterns that are there because we can't really see them. This is what I suggested earlier in this post. This would explain why watermarks are used for patterned breeding as Bob said above.
This leads me to ask about throats. You have suggested that all daylilies have eyes- even lighter selfs. Where is this invisible eye? I mentioned above that I didn't think there was much point in working with spiders or narrow forms that have a large throat in my quest to put patterned eyes on them. To me they aren't attractive anyways as all you see is the throat colour and not the nice colour beyond it , especially if there is any curling or pinching of the tepals. But if the eye is on that large throat area instead of beyond it then perhaps they would work after all. I have always wondered why some throats are so big and others are small.
Thanks for your contribution to the post! Gives me lots to think about.
Debbie


 o
RE: Hybridizing patterns

If I understand you correctly you do think dark colours can hide patterns that are there because we can't really see them. This is what I suggested earlier in this post.

Yes, you are correct I think there are dark (and perhaps medium dark, etc.) colours that hide the patterns that are there because our eyes do not let us distinguish the differences. and yes, I agree with your suggestion.

This leads me to ask about throats. You have suggested that all daylilies have eyes- even lighter selfs. Where is this invisible eye?

It is in more or less the same locations as visible eyes are.

But if the eye is on that large throat area instead of beyond it then perhaps they would work after all. I have always wondered why some throats are so big and others are small.

When the eye is not visible (that happens when the daylily is unable to produce the anthocyanin pigments in its flowers) the 'invisible' eye is in the same place as the visible eye would have been.

I think the size and shape of the throat and the eyes are determined by the length of the petal and its shape. I agree with you about chevron eyes and long thin petals.

Maurice

This post was edited by admmad on Mon, Feb 25, 13 at 10:25


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Daylily Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here