Theoretically, there does not need to be a relationship between the appearance of noticeable differences in the offspring of self-pollinated F1 hybrids. It all depends on the original differences between the two parents of the hybrid. To some extent that depends on the reason the F1 hybrid was produced.

As an example, I create a number of inbred lines by self-pollinating individuals with the largest flowers. After a half-dozen generations I have two inbred lines left (the others died out due to loss of viability, fertility, etc). These two lines have larger than average flowers but are not robust. I cross the two lines and create an F1 hybrid. The hybrid recovers fertility, robustness, good growth and flowering, etc. and I market the F1 hybrid. If the purchaser self-pollinates the hybrid they will produce a range of plants that differ in fertility, etc to some extent but not in flower size. The range (or variability) may not be very large and would not necessarily be in characteristics that were visibly obvious.

In practice, that might be the case for agricultural crops but not as likely with horticultural crops. If the F1 hybrid was created by crossing two species then the offspring from a self-pollination should show a range of characteristics from both parental species.

If most Hibiscus rosa-sinensis cultivars are not specifically F1 hybrids between species but are similar to daylily cultivars then the amount of variability in the offspring of self-pollinations depends completely on the characteristics of the parents of each cultivar.

A second exmaple, from daylilies: I have yellow-flowered cultivar with intermediate size flowers and intermediate height scape and self-pollinate it. The offspring are all yellow-flowered but range in size from small-flowered to large-flowered and in scape height from short to tall. I have a second yellow-flowered cultivar with large size flowers and a short scape. I self-pollinate it and all the offspring are large-flowered yellows with short scapes.

The first yellow cultivar had as its parents a large-flowered tall scaped yellow and a small-flowered short scaped yellow.

The second yellow cultivar had as its parents a large-flowered short-scaped yellow and a second large-flowered short-scaped yellow.

If you know that the plant that is self-pollinated is specifically a first generation hybrid of two species then its offspring should show a mixture of the characteristics of the parental species. But if the original hybridizer of the F1 then made further crosses to 'fix' (make homozygous)certain characteristics then the offspring from self-pollination would be less variable.

The web-site quoted below suggests that 'Bruceii' does not produce a large range of different offspring from self-pollination:

"The variety that we call 'Bruceii' in Australia with its bright yellow flowers and usually masses of seed from self-pollination is close to a pure natural strain in that the seedlings are all nearly identical to the parent in type of bush and flower."

Breeders differ in the procedures they use. Some may line-breed and have many lines (one for large yellows, another for large reds, etc). Other hybridizers may continually outcross and introduce cultivars from other hybridizers into their own crosses. Most hybridizers may be in-between more often using their own plants and occasionally introducing outcrosses. The results of self-pollinating the cultivars introduced by the different hybridizers would differ in the amount of variability they showed.

Here is a link that might be useful: hibiscus applied genetics page

Hello Admmad, Thank you for your input in assisting me understand more about hybridizing with species.

Just to clarify, I am using Species Schizopetalus which is a finged, deeply lobed red single as the pollen parent. As it is a species itself, when self crossed it produces all seedlings that appear to look and perform exactly as Schizopetalus does.

The other Species is Arnotiannus. It is a flat, non-fringed white single that when crossed with itself produces all seedlings that appear to look and perform exactly as Arnotiannus does.

When you cross Arnotiannus with Schizopetalus, all seedlings are Pink fringed singles that vary in bush and bloom looks and habits. One of these was chosen as ther best performer and named Ruth Wilcox. When you cross Ruth Wilcox with Ruth Wilcox you end up with Ruth Wilcox lookalikes. Why do you not end up with any that are either red or white or have form like Schizopetalus or Arnotiannus?

The same applies for Archeraii. Its parents are Rosa Sinesis Species (China Red), a red flat single with no fringed edge. The other is Schizopetalus as described above. The result is a red fringed single. Again, when you self cross it, you end up with Archeraii lookalikes. Why are none looking like having any parent traits ?

Thanks for the link to Geoff Harvey's hybridizing site. I had not read on this site before, but have read many similiar articles. In fact, I was prompted to ask the questions in the first place after a visit to Geoff's place and we were discussing self seeding of his Archeraii and of Albo Lacinatus some time back when he gave me plants he'd grown from Albo Lacinatus self set seed. It grew for me as a replica of Albo Lacinatus.

Any further explanation on this question would be greatly appreciated.

Regards, Brian Kerr.

Brian,

In searching the web for information on the cultivars and species I have become quite confused. You wrote:

When you cross Arnotiannus with Schizopetalus, all seedlings are Pink fringed singles that vary in bush and bloom looks and habits. One of these was chosen as ther best performer and named Ruth Wilcox. When you cross Ruth Wilcox with Ruth Wilcox you end up with Ruth Wilcox lookalikes. Why do you not end up with any that are either red or white or have form like Schizopetalus or Arnotiannus?

The Hibiscus registry lists 'Ruth Wilcox' as 'Knudsen White x 'May Damon' and lists 'Knudsen White' as 'Waimeae Beauty' X 'waimeae' and lists 'May Damon' as 'Beatrice' x 'auai White'.

This web-site, http://www.fancyhibiscus.com/Arnottianus.html
lists 'Ruth Wilcox' as a synonym for arnottianus in the US.

From the results you indicated when 'Ruth Wilcox' is selfed I am inclined to think that the parentage for 'Ruth Wilcox' is not correct.

The hibiscus register has the same parentage for archerii as you listed, "The same applies for Archeraii. Its parents are Rosa Sinesis Species (China Red), a red flat single with no fringed edge. The other is Schizopetalus as described above. The result is a red fringed single. Again, when you self cross it, you end up with Archeraii lookalikes. Why are none looking like having any parent traits ?"

The result of selfing archerii is unexpected. I will offer one possibility that may influence the results but I do not think that this has a very high probability of being the explanation. I do think that because archerii was hybridized some time ago that it is possible that the parentage as listed is not correct.

Archerii is listed as having 84 chromosomes. Rosa-sinensis cultivars are listed as having 63 or 84 chromosomes, rosa-sinensis is listed with any of these counts 44, 46, 70, 76, 84, 90, 92, 118. Schizopetalus is listed as having 34 or 42 chromosomes. There is an initial discrepancy in that archerii's 84 chromosomes are not a typical result from a cross with schizopetalus as a parent with any rosa-sinensis. For archerii to have 84 chromosomes, a chromosome doubling would have had to occur in Schizopetalus and the other parent had 42 chromosomes. None of the rosa-sinensis are listed as having 42 chromosomes.

Setting that aside and assuming that a cross is made between an 84 chromosomes species and a 42 chromosomes species the F1 offspring would have 63 chromosomes (as some Hibiscus rosa-sinensis cultivars apparently do have). The fertility of those hybrids might be (much) lower than normal but their characteristics would be strongly biased to those of the 84 chromosome parent. When those offspring were self-pollinated again the characteristics of their offspring would be biased towards those of the 84 chromosome parent. If a small number of such offspring were examined it could appear that they were very similar but if large enough numbers were grown then there would need to be observable segregation.

The other possibility is that the initial hybridizers of 'Ruth Wilcox' and archerii fixed their characteristics before introducing them. That is they continued the selfing process for more than one generation (perhaps up to five or six generations) and each time selected the best individual to continue.

Have you made the cross arnotiannus x schizopetalus and self-pollinated the offspring and found that all the offspring were identical in both generations? Did the original offspring (F1) of the cross have normal fertility?

Here is a link that might be useful: Malvaceae chromosome counts

I previously posted the following:
For archerii to have 84 chromosomes, a chromosome doubling would have had to occur in Schizopetalus and the other parent had 42 chromosomes.

This is not correct. My apologies for confounding two different methods of producing an offspring with 84 chromosomes from those parents.

Archerii could have 84 chromosomes and be the offspring of rosa-sinensis x schizopetalus if the rosa-sinensis had 84 chromosomes and the schizopetalus had 42 chromosomes which were doubled.

Or archerii could have 84 chromosomes if the rosa-sinensis had 42 chromosomes and the schizopetalus had 42 chromosomes and the chromosomes of archerii (the offspring of the cross) were doubled.

I do not think either of these scenarios is likely to be the explanation.

Schizopetalus is described on one web-site as being a good pollen parent with rosa-sinensis but being difficult as a pod parent even with its own pollen. I am somewhat surprised that a 42 chromosome species would be a good parent with 84 or 63 chromosome cultivars, although it is not impossible. If we consider 42 as a diploid then 84 is a tetraploid and 63 is the triploid. Crosses between diploids and tetraploids typically fail due to 'triploid blocks' (but not always) and triploids are usually sterile or almost so (but again not always). The existence of some rosa-sinensis cultivars with chromosome counts of 63 does suggest that the triploid block is not complete in hibiscus.

Here is a link that might be useful: Hybridizing Schizopetalus - by Quirino

Hello Admmad,
Your reply is greatly appreciated. I will reply within your comments as below IN CAPITALS.,
In searching the web for information on the cultivars and species I have become quite confused. You wrote:
When you cross Arnotiannus with Schizopetalus, all seedlings are Pink fringed singles that vary in bush and bloom looks and habits. One of these was chosen as the best performer and named Ruth Wilcox. When you cross Ruth Wilcox with Ruth Wilcox you end up with Ruth Wilcox lookalikes. Why do you not end up with any that are either red or white or have form like Schizopetalus or Arnotiannus?
The Hibiscus registry lists 'Ruth Wilcox' as 'Knudsen White x 'May Damon' and lists 'Knudsen White' as 'Waimeae Beauty' X 'waimeae' and lists 'May Damon' as 'Beatrice' x 'auai White'.
This web-site, http://www.fancyhibiscus.com/Arnottianus.html
lists 'Ruth Wilcox' as a synonym for arnottianus in the US.
From the results you indicated when 'Ruth Wilcox' is selfed I am inclined to think that the parentage for 'Ruth Wilcox' is not correct. I COULD NOT AGREE MORE - MANY DIFFERENT FACTS INFER CONFLICTING EVIDENCE TO A POINT WHERE CONFUSION MUST RESULT. I SEE THAT I HAVE ADDED TO THE CONFUSION BY REFERRING TO ALBO LACINATUS AS RUTH WILCOX. MY APOLOGIES - IN AUSTRALIA WE MISTAKINGLY AND HABITUALLY USE THE NAME RUTH WILCOX INSTEAD OF THE PROPER NAME, ALBO LACINATUS. NO KNOWN REASON OTHER THAN AN OLD BAD HABIT PASSED DOWN FROM ONE GROWER TO ANOTHER I SUPPOSE.
THE TRUE PARENTS OF ALBO LACINATUS / RUTH WILCOX ARE CONFUSING AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PARENTAGE YOU HAVE LISTED.

THE REASONING FOR STATING THAT ARNOTIANNUS AND SCHIZOPETALUS ARE THE PROBABLE PARENTS OF ALBO LACINATUS IS BECAUSE OF THE CONFUSING AND CONFLICTING INFORMATION AVAILABLE CAUSED SOME OF US HYBRIDIZERS TO START RE-CROSSING WHAT WE KNOW TO BE SPECIESÂ. THE RESULTS FROM MY CROSSINGS AND OF JILL CORYELLS IN HAWAII HAVE RESULTED IN 100s OF ALBO LACINATUS LOOKALIKES.
IN RELATION TO ARNOTIANNUS BEING THE SAME PLANT AS RUTH WILCOX, I HAVE QUESTIONED THE ACCURACY OF THIS FOR MANY YEARS. DESCRIPTION WISE ON PAPER, I HAVE READ THEY ARE SIMILAR, BUT HISTORICALLY IN THE GROUND, RUTH WILCOX HAS NEVER BEEN THE NAME FOUND ON AN ARNOTIANNUS. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ARNOTIANNUS OR WILDERS WHITE.
BELOW IS SOME INFORMATION CONFIRMING HISTORY DOES PLAY TRICKS ON THE FUTURE!
In relation to the varieties of native Hawaiian white hibiscus, hybridising records can be confusing. Early records may have used common names, e.g. 'Ornamental Hibiscus in Hawaii' of 1913, (W11). This reference states that Hibiscus arnottianus is a native white species which occurs under several quite distinct forms, at least from the horticulturists standpoint. These forms are commonly called Tantalus White, Waianae White, Punaluu White and Nuua-nu White.

The text notes that Hibiscus waimeae*(W11) is also a native species with pure white flowers, and occurs under at least three forms, referred to as Knudsen White, Rice White and Lydgate White. It continues that Molokai White is apparently an undescribed species. There is also a description of a cross between Knudsen White and Punaluu White, that is, is a cross between Hibiscus waimeae and Hibiscus arnottianus. Crosses between the two native white species are a further complication.

Another source of confusion, such as in the International HIBISCUS rosa-sinensis Register and Checklist (W12), arises from the fact that not only might common names, rather than botanical names have been used in the records, but subspecies may not be shown. Common names include Punaluu White, Nuuanu White and Tantalus White. Botanical names are given as Hibiscus arnottianus, Hibiscus immaculatus and Hibiscus punaluuensis.

In the Hibiscus Register (W12), common names given in the records include Tantalus White (Albo Lacinatus), Punaluu White (Ross Estey), Waianae White (Annie Hobron). Botanical names include Hibiscus arnottianus (Agnes Galt), Hibiscus immaculatus (Mrs James E. Hendry) and Hibiscus punaluuen-sis (numbered seedling).
A FEW HY
The hibiscus register has the same parentage for archerii as you listed, "The same applies for Archeraii. Its parents are Rosa Sinesis Species (China Red), a red flat single with no fringed edge. The other is Schizopetalus as described above. The result is a red fringed single. Again, when you self cross it, you end up with Archeraii lookalikes. Why are none looking like having any parent traits ?"
The result of selfing archerii is unexpected. I will offer one possibility that may influence the results but I do not think that this has a very high probability of being the explanation. I do think that because archerii was hybridized some time ago that it is possible that the parentage as listed is not correct. I HAVE QUESTIONED THIS PARENTAGE MYSELF AS I HAVE ARCHERAII AND ANDERSONAII SEEDLINGS LOOKALIKES FROM NASALI PINK X SCHIZOPETALUS, ESP SINCE THE BRONZE FOLIAGE IS HANDED DOWN BY NASALI PINK.
Archerii is listed as having 84 chromosomes. Rosa-sinensis cultivars are listed as having 63 or 84 chromosomes, rosa-sinensis is listed with any of these counts 44, 46, 70, 76, 84, 90, 92, 118. Schizopetalus is listed as having 34 or 42 chromosomes. There is an initial discrepancy in that archerii's 84 chromosomes are not a typical result from a cross with schizopetalus as a parent with any rosa-sinensis. For archerii to have 84 chromosomes, a chromosome doubling would have had to occur in Schizopetalus and the other parent had 42 chromosomes. None of the rosa-sinensis are listed as having 42 chromosomes.
Setting that aside and assuming that a cross is made between an 84 chromosomes species and a 42 chromosomes species the F1 offspring would have 63 chromosomes (as some Hibiscus rosa-sinensis cultivars apparently do have). The fertility of those hybrids might be (much) lower than normal but their characteristics would be strongly biased to those of the 84 chromosome parent. When those offspring were self-pollinated again the characteristics of their offspring would be biased towards those of the 84 chromosome parent. If a small number of such offspring were examined it could appear that they were very similar but if large enough numbers were grown then there would need to be observable segregation.
The other possibility is that the initial hybridizers of 'Ruth Wilcox' and archerii fixed their characteristics before introducing them. That is they continued the selfing process for more than one generation (perhaps up to five or six generations) and each time selected the best individual to continue. MAYBE THIS IS THE SIMPLE ANSWER? DO YOU MEAN THAT ALBO WAS SELFED AND THE BEST SEEDLING WAS PUT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ALBO AND THAT THIS CONTINUED WITH BEST SEEDLINGS BEING PUT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ALBO? SOUNDS FEASIBLE, BUT STILL WOULDNÂT SOME SHOW UP TODAY AS HAVING PARENTAL TRAITS OR DOES THE FIXING PROCESS MASK ANY CHANCE OF THIS HAPPENING?
Have you made the cross arnotiannus x schizopetalus and self-pollinated the offspring and found that all the offspring were identical in both generations? Did the original offspring (F1) of the cross have normal fertility? NO, I HAVE NOT. I WAS REFERRING TO GEOFF HARVEY COLLECTING SELF SET SEED AND GROWING IT, THE RESULT BEING ALBO LACINNATUS LOOKALIKES.
ONE MORE INTERESTING DEVIATION IS SNOW QUEEN, A VARIEGATED WHITE / GREEN FOLIAGE ROSA SINESIS WITH SMALL, RED FRINGED BLOOMS. IT HAS SPORTED SEVERAL BRANCHES OF SCHIZOPETALUS HALF WAY UP THE BUSH. NO, IT IS NOT THE GRAFT AND YES, GEOFF HARVEY HAS SEEN THE PLANT IS AT A LOSS AS TO WHY/HOW ETC.

WHAT DOES THIS TELL US? PICTURES AVAILABLE.

THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR AVID INTEREST AND RESEARCH INTO MY QUERY. IT ALL HELPS TO ANSWER THE MANY ABERRATIONS OF THE QUEEN OF THE FLOWERÂS HISTORY AND IS AN AMAZING GUIDE INTO THE FUTURE.

I LOOK FORWARD TO FURTHER INFO IF YOU ARE ABLE TO HELP.

REGARDS, BRIAN KERR.

Hi Brian,

Previous excerpt:
That is they continued the selfing process for more than one generation (perhaps up to five or six generations) and each time selected the best individual to continue. MAYBE THIS IS THE SIMPLE ANSWER? DO YOU MEAN THAT ALBO WAS SELFED AND THE BEST SEEDLING WAS PUT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ALBO AND THAT THIS CONTINUED WITH BEST SEEDLINGS BEING PUT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ALBO? SOUNDS FEASIBLE, BUT STILL WOULDNT SOME SHOW UP TODAY AS HAVING PARENTAL TRAITS OR DOES THE FIXING PROCESS MASK ANY CHANCE OF THIS HAPPENING?

The fixing process does indeed reduce the chance of seedlings showing parental characteristics. In detail, my suggestion is that the original hybridizer might have crossed arnotiannus with schizopetalus and produced a number of hybrid seedlings (the F1). From those F1 seedlings the hybridizer might have chosen the best one and placed its own pollen on its flowers (self-pollinated it). A number of the second generation hybrids (F2) would be produced and again the best one chosen. The best F2 would have its own pollen put on its flowers (self-pollinated). If this process is continued for five to six generations the result is that nearly all variability is lost. In the fifth generation, when the best individual is self-pollinated and a number of offspring grown from the seeds all of them will be identical in all characteristics.

The hybridizer could stop the process before the fifth generation if all the offspring from an earlier generation were identical in the characteristics that the hybridizer desired but still variable in characteristics that the hybridizer did not care about.

Genetically, if we assume that fringed petals are dominant (because fringed X non-fringed produces all fringed offspring) then the F1 are all fringed because they are heterozygous I will represent the gene for fringed as F and that for non-fringed as f. Schizopetalus is FF and arnotiannus is ff. The first generation hybrid would be Ff and all fringed. Self-pollinating the first generation (put its pollen on its own flowers) will produce more fringed than non-fringed plants (to be exact for every three fringed plants there would be approximately one non-fringed plant). The plants would be a mixture of FF (fringed homozygous) Ff (fringed heterozygous) and ff (non-fringed homozygous). If the hybridizer chose three of the fringed plants (A, B, and C) and self-pollinated each one of them (their own pollen on their own flowers) then the following offspring would be produced:

A) FF (self-pollinated) produces all fringed offspring.
B) Ff (self-pollinated) produces a mixture of fringed and non-fringed offspring (three fringed for every one non-fringed).
C) the same as B.

By looking at the offspring the hybridizer knows that plant A was homozygous (fixed) for the fringed characteristic and that all its offspring are fixed for fringed. If the best of those offspring was chosen to be registered (named) and introduced into commerce then when it was self-pollinated all its offspring would be fringed.

If we look at the second characteristic, flower colour, it appears to be codominant because a red x white gave all pink offspring. Therefore the red parent could be represented genetically as RR, the white parent as rr, and the F1 hybrid as Rr and pink. In this case all three genotypes can be immediately identified because each shows a different colour (phenotype).

Plant A from the above example could have been red, or pink or white. If it was red (RR) or white (rr) it would have been fixed (homozygous) for flower colour and all its offspring (from self-pollination) would always be the same colour. If it was pink then its offspring from self pollination would be a mixture of reds, whites and pinks in the ratio of one red to one white to two pinks. If the hybridizer wanted a white fringed then the best of those offspring that were white and fringed could be chosen, named and introduced into commerce.

If the introduced plant was self-pollinated then all its offspring would be white and fringed. They might vary in other plant characteristics that the hybridizer did not care about, and which were different in the original two species (or they might not vary - it depends on how the hybridizer selected the plant to be introduced).

The 'fixing process' removes all variability from the plant that the hybridizer wishes to reduce and to the level that the hybridizer wishes.

ONE MORE INTERESTING DEVIATION IS SNOW QUEEN, A VARIEGATED WHITE / GREEN FOLIAGE ROSA SINESIS WITH SMALL, RED FRINGED BLOOMS. IT HAS SPORTED SEVERAL BRANCHES OF SCHIZOPETALUS HALF WAY UP THE BUSH. NO, IT IS NOT THE GRAFT AND YES, GEOFF HARVEY HAS SEEN THE PLANT IS AT A LOSS AS TO WHY/HOW ETC.

Schizopetalus is a fringed red; is the sport of 'Snow Queen' a different fringed red from Snow Queen or has it lost its variegated foliage? Losing variegated foliage is quite common in some species as the variegation may not be stable. On the other hand if the sport is a change in flower shape/size/etc then Snow Queen may be heterozygous for the gene responsible for that characteristic and either a mutation or recombination occurred during growth. From your description I am not certain how the sport differs from Snow Queen in appearance.

Hello Admmad, Thank you for your amazing detail. I have been reading it often to try and digest it to a point where I can speak fluently about it.

What you have said is starting to give some insight into the many unknowns in the Lillibiscus family - a glimpse at least in one direction!

Regarding the Snow Queen sport, the standard sport many people get is the same bloom on all green, upright, vigourous foliage. What we have here is bush habit, foliage and bloom, in all respects, the exact same as Schizopetalus - an exact copy of Schizopetalus blooms in every way. Pictures available.

On another matter, and somewhat answered by what you have explained already, I am in the process of creating some designer blooms and bush habits not currently available and especially suitable for the Landscaping Industry. Below is part of some thoughts I was putting together to be directed at people like yourself. Have a read and see if it makes some logical sense. Remember, it is unfinished ......, but with some continued questions, may become finalised.
Regards, Brian.

THE ANOMALIES OF HYBRIDIZING USING THE VARIOUS SPECIES OF HIBISCUS

In my search to understand more about hybridizing Rosa- Sinensis hibiscus (or as some say, Hibiscus x rosasinensis.) with other Malvaceae Family compatible species/varieties, I would like to delve into the stored knowledge and experiences of fellow hybridizers of other plant families.

I have 25 years experience hybridizing with a number of hibiscus species and have several thousand crosses with many varieties involved.

I have reached a stage where the goals I want to achieve and my planned path to that point are causing me to want to know why some crosses, that should be compatible, seem to not be happening.

I have considered cultural, climatic, pest, disease and soil conditions/suitability, but feel their must be more to it, as in theory the crosses I need to do should be possible.

To understand it from my point of view, these are the facts so far:

Cuban Variety (c/v) has unknown origins, but appears to be close to a species or a very early, primitive variety. My crosses with it so far indicate it is perhaps a species.

C/V is compatible with all Hibiscus x rosasinensis I have tried so far that have with viable pollen lots of seed.

C/V has a yellow/orange bloom.

Schizopetalus (Scp) is a recognized species with a red bloom that has deeply cut and fringed petals.

Scp has pollen that is viable with all Hibiscus x rosasinensis
I have tried so far with seed setting ability variable seed numbers.

Scp is compatible with species Arnotiannus (mother) and produces lots of seed.

Scp is compatible with Nasali Pink (mother) and produces lots of seed.

Scp is reputed to set seed, but no success for me.

Arnotiannus (Arn) is a recognized species with white blooms.

Arn is compatible with all Hibiscus x rosasinensis I have tried so far that have with viable pollen variable seed numbers.

Arn has pollen that is viable with most Hibiscus x rosasinensis
I have tried so far with seed setting ability variable seed numbers.

Albo Lacinatus (Albo) is a hybrid from Arnotiannus x Schizopetalus with pale pink blooms that have scalloped edged petals.

Albo has pollen that is viable with most Hibiscus x rosasinensis
I have tried so far with seed setting ability variable seed numbers.

Albo is reputed to set seed, but no success for me.

Nasali Pink (N/P) is of unknown parentage, but appears to be close to a species or a very early, primitive variety. My crosses with it so far indicate it is almost certainly a species.

N/P as a pod parent is compatible with Arnotiannus and Schizopetalus lots of seed.

N/P has unusual deep pink/coral red blooms.

I have specific goals I want to achieve.

· Frilly edged blooms in colours other than the red, pink and possibly white (as a white sport of Albo Lacinatus is reputed to exist). Bush habit/form irrelevant.

· A Cuban Variety type bush with frilly edged blooms in colours other than the red, pink and possibly white (as a white sport of Albo Lacinatus is reputed to exist).

· Prolific bloomers in colours/colour combinations that bloom as well as Arnotiannus, Cuban Variety and Nasali Pink. Bush habit/form irrelevant.

· Cuban Variety type bushes that are prolific bloomers like Arnotiannus, Cuban Variety and Nasali Pink in new colours/colour combinations.

· Frilly edged blooms on a Cuban Variety type bush, that blooms as prolifically as Arnotiannus, Cuban Variety and Nasali Pink.

· A bush

My questions are simple:
1. If Albo Lacinatus crosses easily with Cuban Variety (mother) and produces abundant seed, why wont its parents, Arnotiannus and Schizopetalus, cross easily with Cuban Variety (mother)?

I have to say Schizopetalus will cross, but out of 100 attempts only one pod will hold and will yield only a couple of seed so this then becomes another question .. why so difficult? .. why so few seed? Arnotiannus, never.

2. If Arnotiannus crosses easily with all Hibiscus x rosasinensis I have tried so far and Cuban variety crosses easily with all Hibiscus x rosasinensis I have tried so far, why wont Arnotiannus (pod parent), cross with Cuban Variety?

3. Nasali Pink crosses with all Hibiscus x rosasinensis I have tried so far and with Schizopetalus and with Arnotiannus, but will not cross (pod or pollen), with Cuban Variety.

Brian,

Two questions:

1) Will 'Cuban Variety' set seed with its own pollen?

2) Is there anything special (or in common) about 'Little Flame', 'Haleakala', or 'Cock Robin' all of which have sired introductions from 'Cuban Variety'?

Hello Admmad, I have been trying for the last few years to self Cuban Variety.
It may have set seed when I selfed it.
By 'may' I mean, I could have pollinated CV using another bloom OR CV itself and not tagged it as I have had some pods without tags produce seed. The resultant seedlings do not look like CV, but do exhibit traits from other varieties I have used.

An educated guess would therefore say, no it will not set seed with its own pollen.

Common links between Little Flame, Haleakala and Cock Robin will need some searching. I know the blooms and would suggest Haleakala is not related to either, but Little Flame and Cock Robin are minis and related as both have Blueberry Tart as pod parent.

Grand parentage etc may show more relations, but this would take time to find. Why do you ask?

Regards, Brian.

Thank you Brian,

I searched the Hibiscus registry for the parentage of any introductions using 'Cuban Variety' as a parent. There were only five or six. All used CV as the pod parent. The pollen parents were Madam President, Little Flame, Cock Robin and Haleakala. I have checked the parentage of 'Madam President' it is also from 'Blueberry Tart'.

Has 'Cuban Variety' produced any seeds and any viable offspring when used as the pollen parent with any other hibiscus?

When you have made certain crosses and they have produced seeds have the seeds been germinated and are they known to produce viable offspring?

The reason I ask is that there are several possible problems occurring in the Hibiscus crosses.

1) Involves chromosome mismatches (the numbers or genetic patterns do not match). In such crosses seeds may be produced which are not viable or the crosses may typically fail with a very rare cross succeeding (as in the cross of CV X Schizopetalus).

Schizopetalus is listed as having 42 chromosomes and rosa-sinensis as having 84 chromosomes. That makes this a cross that should not typically succeed easily. When it does succeed the offspring would have 63 chromosomes and be quite infertile (triploids). However, some triploids are fertile. Crosses in which the parents have different chromosome numbers can be a hit or miss affair. Many species have what is called a triploid block that prevents triploid individuals from being produced. But within the species different individuals may vary in the strength of their triploid block such that some individuals might produce some viable offspring. In this case 'Cuban Variety' might have a very strong triploid block that does not allow any offspring to be produced from Schizopetalus pollen. But most rosa-sinensis might have weak triploid blocks and produce triploid offspring from crosses with Schizopetalus pollen. If 'CV' has the same chromosome number as rosa-sinensis there might be little or no problem in producing seeds from rosa-sinensis pollen.

2) Some species have methods to prevent self-pollination from being successful - they are self-incompatible. This system sometimes breaks down in interspecies hybrids and they become self-compatible. I found two references on the web that indicate that schizopetalus and rosa-sinensis are self-incompatible. A third reference indicated that some cultivars of rosa-sinensis were self-incompatible. The biological basis of self-incompatibility is supposed to prevent only self-fertilizations from being successful but allow cross-pollinations to succeed. However, the method involved only allows most cross-pollinations to succeed - some will fail.

Here is one possibility, if 'Cuban Variety' pollen is viable and if CV X CV fails to set seed then CV may be self-incompatible. CV might have the genes S1/S2. This means than any pollen that is S1 or any pollen that is S2 would fail in CV. It is possible that rosa-sinensis no longer produces either S1 nor S2 in its pollen and therefore all its pollen will be compatible with CV. It is also possible that schizopetalus does produce either S1 or S2, and that arnotiannus and and nasali pink also produce S1 or S2 and therefore have incompatible pollen.

3)CV is close to a species in ancestry and has mechanisms to prevent pollen from most species from being successful or the seeds produced are not viable. This works in most crosses with species or cultivars close to species but does not work with rosa-sinensis because it has lost the factor or factors that are needed for this reproductive isolation to be effective. If albo lacinatus pollen works with CV then since it is an interspecies hybrid, albo may also have lost the factor.

When crosses are made between species they very often fail; success tends to be the unusual. Sometimes a cross between a species and the offspring from a cross of two other species A x (B X C) works while neither the cross of A X B nor that of A X C works. The causes of these incompatibilities are likely to be very complex.

It is possible that you might get a better understanding of your crosses if you have noted how they fail.

Does a particular pollination (cross) cause the flower to wither and the pod to start to develop? Do most pods abort before maturing seeds?

Does a particular pollination (cross) cause the flower to wither but no pod starts to develop (just as if the flower was not pollinated at all)?

Does a particular pollination (cross) produce pods that develop to maturity but the seeds are soft (not mature) or empty or otherwise not normal?

Does a particular pollination (cross) produce few pods with few seeds that appear mature but none of the seeds ever germinate?

Does a particular pollination (cross) produce offspring that are both pod and pollen sterile?

Are some cultivars pollen fertile but pod sterile, and others pollen sterile but pod fertile, etc?

This type of information might help produce a better picture of what is happening with the crosses you would like to make and offspring you would like to produce.

Hello Admmad, Cuban Variety has not been successful in pollinating any other varieties as far as my experiences go.

Answers to other questions posed are in caps:

Does a particular pollination (cross) cause the flower to wither and the pod to start to develop? Do most pods abort before maturing seeds? YES, CV X SCHIZOPETALUS, AND HARVEST MOON X 'ANYTHING'. ANDERSONAII x 'ANYTHING' AS WELL.

Does a particular pollination (cross) cause the flower to wither but no pod starts to develop (just as if the flower was not pollinated at all)? YES, CV X ARNOTIANNUS AND CV x NASALI PINK. HERM GELLER X 'ANYTHING', THOUGH IT DOES SET SEED ONRARE OCCASIONS. ROYAL PURPLE x 'ANYTHING'

Does a particular pollination (cross) produce pods that develop to maturity but the seeds are soft (not mature) or empty or otherwise not normal? YES, BUT THIS HAPPENS AT TIMES WITH OTHER VARIETIES AS WELL.

Does a particular pollination (cross) produce few pods with few seeds that appear mature but none of the seeds ever germinate? YES, BUT THIS HAPPENS AT TIMES WITH OTHER VARIETIES AS WELL

Does a particular pollination (cross) produce offspring that are both pod and pollen sterile? YES, CV X SCHIZO LOOKS TO HAVE PRODUCED OFFSPRING THAT ARE NOT WILLING TO SET SEED USING INTER-RELATED POLLEN. ANOTHER CROSS USING ALBO LACINATUS POLLEN PRODUCED ALL OFFSPRING WITHOUT POLLEN SACS/NON-DEHISCING. ALSO, I HAVE YET TO SET SEED OR HAVE LUCK WITH POLLEN FROM THE SEEDLINGS OF NASALI PINK x SCHIZOPETALUS.

Are some cultivars pollen fertile but pod sterile, and others pollen sterile but pod fertile, etc? YES, BOTH WAYS - TOO MANY TO NAME. CV OF COURSE.

YOU HAVE BEEN VERY INSIGHTFUL ADMMAD AND CREATED SOME EXPLANATIONS AND ALLOWED ME TO SEE THAT EVEN THOUGH COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING MAY BE POSSIBLE VIA RESEARCH AND RECORDING, I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO TAKE THINGS AT FACE VALUE, USE THE KNOWN FACTS SO FAR AND SUMMISE A PROGRAMME TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRED RESULTS, PERHAPS COME UP TRUMPS, IF NOT, LEARN MORE AND KEEP APPLYING WHAT SEEMS LIKELY.

SO IF YOU ARE ABLE TO FURTHER QUALIFY SOME LIKELY FACTS AND SUGGEST SOME LIKELY PROGRAMMES TO POSSIBLY ACHIEVE MY DESIRED GOALS, I WOULD BE MOST GRATEFUL .... AND CERTAINLY KEEP YOU RECOGNIZED IN THE LOOP OF WHAT EVENTUATES.

ON A SIMILIAR MATTER, DO I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, THAT A SPECIES CAN BE SELF INCOMPATIBLE OR TOTALLY THE OPPOSITE AND SELF SET SEED WITH RESULTING SEEDLINGS BEING IDENTICAL?
SCHIZOPETALUS FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD IS SELF IMCOMPATIBLE, BUT FOR GEOFF HARVEY, HE GOT AMPLE SEED FROM A VERY LARGE MATURE BUSH HE ONCE HAD.

NASALI PINK SELF SEEDS AND PRODUCES REPLICAS OF ITSELF AND A CREAM VERSION OF ITSELF. YOU CAN PUT 100 SELF SET SEED DOWN AND THE RESULT WILL BE A 50/50 SPLIT OF THE 2 BLOOMS. ONE THING THOUGH, I CAN'T REMEMBER EVER BEING ABLE TO GET SEED FROM THE CREAM VERSION.

THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR VALUABLE INPUT INTO MY RESEARCH.

REGARDS, BRIAN.

I TRUST THIS LATEST BIT OF INFO IS HELPFUL, IF NOT YOU KEEP ASKING THE QUESTIONS AND I'LL TRY TO FOLLOW.

Brian,

I will try to cover some of the possibilities.

ON A SIMILIAR MATTER, DO I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, THAT A SPECIES CAN BE SELF INCOMPATIBLE OR TOTALLY THE OPPOSITE AND SELF SET SEED WITH RESULTING SEEDLINGS BEING IDENTICAL?

Yes, and no. Compatibility within a species may be one of several different types, the most common involves what is called the S gene (often called the S locus). In diploids, individuals can only be heterozygous at the S gene and usually within the species there are many different forms of the S gene (the forms are called alleles). Perhaps as many as 25 alleles. Therefore individuals within the species might be S1/S2, others might be S3/S8, or S11/S12 or S2/S3 and so on. An example: an individual that was S1/S2 will not produce seed when pollinated with its own pollen (S1 or S2), it would produce abundant seed when pollinated by an individual that was S3/S4 (etc) and less abundantly if pollinated by an individual that was S2/S3 (since only the S3 pollen would work). Those would be the typical results. However, there could be individuals in the species that had lost, at least partially, the ability to distinguish pollen S-types and they might produce seeds from their own pollen. Also, some species that would be described as typically self-incompatible - may accept their own pollen when pollinated towards the end of their normal flowering season.

For self-compatible species, selfing works and they produce seed. The seedlings characteristics depend completely on the genetic make-up (genotype) of the parent. The extent of visible differences between individuals in a species under natural circumstances varies. For example, some species have individuals with different flower colours eg the desert annual Linanthus parryae has some individuals with white flowers and some with blue flowers in the wild - many species have all individuals with the same flower colour. If one were to collect a blue-flowered individual Linanthus and self it one might find only blue offspring or one might find a mix of 3 blue to one white. If one were to collect a white-flowered individual from the wild and self-pollinate it one would only find white offspring.

A species may be either self-incompatible or self-compatible. Either type of species may have individuals that are homozygous or heterozygous for particular characteristics, for example flower colour. A self-compatible species may have individuals that are fixed for red flower colour RR and when selfed produce only red offspring. A self-incompatible species may have individuals that are fixed for red flower colour RR (and although not able to be selfed usually) when selfing was successful (or when another RR individual was the other parent in a cross) would produce all red offspring. The genotype of the individuals does not depend on the self-compatibility (or lack of it) except for the single S-locus.

If a particular hibiscus species or cultivar is available from multiple origins then the plants may differ in characteristics, including self-incompatibility. This is particularly possible when the plant is not a named/bred cultivar but is an introduction from plants directly collected from the 'wild'.

When a plant is selfed and produces replicas of itself (in some manner) that indicates the plant is 'fixed' or homozygous for that characteristic. When a plant is selfed and it produces offspring showing a range of a particular characteristic then that indicates the parent plant was heterozygous for that character).

Nasali Pink x Nasali Pink -> 50 pink : 50 cream is an unusual result. I will assume that Nasali Pink was selfed using normal pollinating precautions. The closest simple explanation would be that the ratio was close to 9:7 rather than 1:1. If it was 9:7 then the genetic description of the cross would be:

Nasali Pink is AaBb, selfing AaBb x AaBb produces nine offspring that are A-B- where the - may be either, and seven offspring (three are aaB-, three are A-bb and one is aabb). An individual is cream if it has aa or bb or aabb. It is pink in all other cases. That would also mean that there are three kinds of cream. Crossing two creams (derived from Nasali Pink) together could give an enormous number of possible results.

cream x cream from Nasali Pink ancestry might produce all cream offspring (aa x aa, or bb x bb or aabb x aabb) or it might produce all pink offspring (aaBB cream x AAbb cream -> AaBb pink. This is known in carnations and indicates that both the A and B gene are involved in the same pathway to create a particular pigment (or pigments). Many of the crosses of cream x cream would produce both pink and cream offspring in different ratios.

Does a particular pollination (cross) cause the flower to wither and the pod to start to develop? Do most pods abort before maturing seeds? YES, CV X SCHIZOPETALUS

I would interpret this to indicate that the schizopetalus pollen grew down the style and fertilized the ovule starting development of the seed but some incompatibility between the two parents (possibly chromosome mismatch) caused the seeds to abort. The schizopetalus pollen is compatible but the seed formed is not viable. Often due to triploidy of the embryo. If removed from the seed early enough and grown on tissue culture type media many such embryos prove to be viable (in other plant species) and grow into plants that flower. The fertility of such plants would be unguessable.

Does a particular pollination (cross) cause the flower to wither but no pod starts to develop (just as if the flower was not pollinated at all)? YES, CV X ARNOTIANNUS AND CV x NASALI PINK.

I would interpret this to mean that the arnotiannus and Nasali Pink pollen did not grow far enough down the style and did not fertilize the ovule. This suggests that those pollens are not compatible with CV.

Does a particular pollination (cross) produce pods that develop to maturity but the seeds are soft (not mature) or empty or otherwise not normal? YES, BUT THIS HAPPENS AT TIMES WITH OTHER VARIETIES AS WELL.

Does a particular pollination (cross) produce few pods with few seeds that appear mature but none of the seeds ever germinate? YES, BUT THIS HAPPENS AT TIMES WITH OTHER VARIETIES AS WELL

In both these cases the pollen was compatible and managed to fertilize the ovules but the embryos were not viable. Possibly a chromosome mismatch (triploidy for example).

Does a particular pollination (cross) produce offspring that are both pod and pollen sterile? YES, CV X SCHIZO LOOKS TO HAVE PRODUCED OFFSPRING THAT ARE NOT WILLING TO SET SEED USING INTER-RELATED POLLEN. ANOTHER CROSS USING ALBO LACINATUS POLLEN PRODUCED ALL OFFSPRING WITHOUT POLLEN SACS/NON-DEHISCING. ALSO, I HAVE YET TO SET SEED OR HAVE LUCK WITH POLLEN FROM THE SEEDLINGS OF NASALI PINK x SCHIZOPETALUS.

The CV x Schizopetalus offspring might be 'triploids' and more or less both pod and pollen sterile. The same may be the case for the Nasali pink x Schizopetalus offspring if they also do not produce seedlings when used as pod parents. There is also the possibility of single genes affecting sterility for pod or pollen or both.

Hello Admmad,
Great reply - thankyou. You are correct with the 50/50 split of Nasali Pink. It is more likely to be a 9:7 split. I say 50/50 for ease of conversation, but know more pinks show than creams. I will be using the creams and selfing to see how your reasoning works out.

Your comment about "may accept their own pollen when pollinated towards the end of their normal flowering season.", gives me hope to continue to try. I also have experienced some hibiscus that will only set seed when PH is changed (increased) and/or when they are placed under stress/neglect. Don't give up takes on new meaning!

Regarding the Snow Queen sport, the standard sport many people get is the same bloom on all green, upright, vigourous foliage. What we have here is bush habit, foliage and bloom, in all respects, the exact same as Schizopetalus - an exact copy of Schizopetalus blooms in every way. Pictures available.

IF YOU ARE ABLE TO FURTHER QUALIFY SOME LIKELY FACTS AND SUGGEST SOME LIKELY PROGRAMMES TO POSSIBLY ACHIEVE MY DESIRED GOALS, I WOULD BE MOST GRATEFUL .... AND CERTAINLY KEEP YOU RECOGNIZED IN THE LOOP OF WHAT EVENTUATES.

Thank you again for your input. With your information it is slowly starting to gel with me and I am developing some thoughts as to how my goals may be able to be realized. However, if you are able to suggest some likely crosses to yield likely results, it would be appreciated by all.

One thing I have learnt by experience, is that when you put Schizo to a species or suspected species, you end up with a frilly edged bloom. When you put this bloom to another species the frilly, scalloped edge disappears, but when you put Schizo to this non frilly edged bloom the frilly scalloped edge returns. So in theory, if the first species parent that Schizo was put to was white, the seedling resulting was pink, the next species the pink was put to was yellow, the result was pink and then Schizo (red) was put to this, what are the likely colour(s) to be produced?

Your input is most appreciated Admmad.

Regards, Brian.

Hi Brian,

One thing I have learnt by experience, is that when you put Schizo to a species or suspected species, you end up with a frilly edged bloom.

Schizo is FF, the frilly-edged offspring is Ff,

When you put this bloom to another species the frilly, scalloped edge disappears,

I'm not sure why this would be (in the simplest case). Half the offspring should be frilly and half should not be frilly.

In a more complicated case 75% of the offspring would not be frilly and 25% would be frilly (that would suggest two genes for frilliness).

but when you put Schizo to this non frilly edged bloom the frilly scalloped edge returns.

Again in the simplest case the non-frilly plant is ff and since Schizo is FF the offspring are Ff and all frilly.

So in theory, if the first species parent that Schizo was put to was white pp, the seedling resulting was pink, Pp the next species the pink was put to was yellow, ??
Can you provide some details of the breeding behaviour of yellow? What happens when a species red is crossed to a species yellow, what happens when a species white is crossed to a species yellow? what happens when the offspring are self-pollinated?
the result was pink
do you know what is produced if this pink is self-pollinated?

and then Schizo (red) was put to this, what are the likely colour(s) to be produced?

It depends - unfortunately some details of how yellow fits into the breeding results is needed. Yellow could be a member of the pink/white series or it might be a completely different and unrelated gene. I suspect that it is a different gene. However, if I were to hazard a guess I would think that the offspring would be reds and pinks only.

In terms of trying to force crosses, in some species it is possible to force open up a bud a few days before it will naturally open and pollinating it then and have a low rate of success. In others it is possible to wait until very late in the flowers lifespan and trying to pollinate it then. In true lilies, Lilium, cutting the style very close to the ovary and pollinating the cut end will work sometimes at a low success rate for intergeneric crosses that otherwise are incompatible.

If those methods were successful it would probably require several hundred pollinations to have any success.

Hi Brian,

On the question of Snow Queen, there is no information on its parentage in the registry - do you know what the offspring are like when it is self-pollinated? Does it a produce a mixture of offspring? How varied they are? etc.

Hello Admmad,
Frilly edges in Hibiscus seem to only carry 1 generation away from a species and with my experience and that of others that I know of, never show at all when Schizopetalus is put to modern day varieties. In such cases, the quality of the bloom is downgraded greatly.

What could happen if 2 seedlings from modern day crosses with Schizopetalus as the father, were put together and so on with other crosses with Schizo as father?

YOUR QUESTION, "Can you provide some details of the breeding behaviour of yellow? What happens when a species red is crossed to a species yellow, what happens when a species white is crossed to a species yellow? what happens when the offspring are self-pollinated? " THIS YELLOW GAVE MANY COLOURS IN SEEDLINGS AS IT HAS BEEN USED WITH MANY VARIETIES. NO DOMINANT COLOUR WHEN USED WITH MODERN DAY VARIETIES, BUT WITH SCHIZO, RED IS THE RESULT SO FAR. SPECIES RED TO YELLOW - RESULT IS RED SO FAR. WHITE TO YELLOW HAS NOT WORKED SO FAR, BUT I HAVE IN MIND TO USE 'Bruceii' AS A YELLOW TO PUT TO ARNOTIANNUS AND VICE VERSA AND PUT SCHIZO TO 'Bruceii'. I'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN A YEAR OR SO!

YOUR QUSETION "do you know what is produced if this pink is self-pollinated?" - NO, BUT I WILL BE DOING THIS TOMORROW AND GIVE ME A YEAR AND I'LL KNOW.

YOUR QUESTION, "On the question of Snow Queen, there is no information on its parentage in the registry - do you know what the offspring are like when it is self-pollinated? Does it a produce a mixture of offspring? How varied they are? etc." NO ANSWERS HERE AS IT IS NOT KNOWN TO ME TO SET SEED OR HAVE VIABLE POLLEN, WITH OTHERS OR ITSELF.

On a related matter, do you know anything about species Liliflorous and compatability with Schizopetalus, Arnotiannus etc?

Thanks again Admaad for your continuatiion of this thread.

Regards, Brian.

Hi Brian,

You wrote:
Frilly edges in Hibiscus seem to only carry 1 generation away from a species and with my experience and that of others that I know of, never show at all when Schizopetalus is put to modern day varieties.

I'm sorry but as this is confusing for most simple genetic schemes I am going to need much more information.

If I reword the findings with crosses with Schizopetalus it seems as if when crossed with some plants (A) the offspring are all fringed. When crossed with other plants(B) none of the offspring are fringed. When the A plants are self-pollinated they produce replicas of themselves and therefore are considered to be species or close to species. The B plants are modern cultivars.

I might almost be able to understand those sorts of behaviour, if all the plants that when crossed with Schizopetalus and produced fringed seedlings had the same chromosome number as Schizopetalus (34/42). In that case all the modern cultivars would have a much higher number (84). But arnottianus has 84 chromosomes. And modern rosa-sinensis cultivars apparently have a wide range of chromosome numbers from 44 to 118 so some of them should produce fringed offspring.

I imagine the genetic basis of those results will not be understandable without full details of each cross and of not only schizopetalus but also of the other parent.
As an example modern C x schizopetalus produces non-fringed seedlings. If C is self-pollinated what is produced and what happens. What happens if the seedlings are self-pollinated. How does C react with the other parents used in other crosses with schizo, etc. Preferably the information would involve numbers and if plants were not self-compatible exactly how the pollinated flowers/pods reacted and how many seeds were produced per pod and were viable, etc. It could be done but would be a time-consuming task.

From the published chromosome counts of rosa-sinensis cultivars I imagine that the breeding behaviour and compatibility of modern hibiscus has been made unusual due to original (older) crosses between species with mismatched chromosomes and chromosome numbers (and their success).

This would be the scheme if we are dealing with plants with different chromosome numbers.

42 chromosome plant (ff) x schizopetalus (FF)
produces 42 chromosome plants (Ff) all fringed. If these plants are self-pollinated or crossed amongst themselves then the seedlings produced would be 42 chromosome plants and be fringed in the ratio of 3:1, (one FF: two Ff: one ff). In describing these results they are based on known crosses not from registry parentage.

The second type of cross would be 84 chromosome parent (modern?)(ffff) x shizopetalus (FF)
This would produce 'triploid' offspring not fringed (Fff). Fertility of these as pod parents would likely be poor but possibly very variable. Fertility as pollen parents would be low but better than as pod parents and very variable. If one managed to produce seedlings from either selfing or crossing amongst each other the results would be a very large range of types with unknown ratios. Some fringed seedlings would be expected but they would be a minority and how rare is unknowable. Nor could one predict their fertility or other characteristics.

What could happen if 2 seedlings from modern day crosses with Schizopetalus as the father, were put together and so on with other crosses with Schizo as father?

One would expect to recover some fringed seedlings with a range of the other characteristics present and different in the original parents. However, if the cross is made back to schizo then its characteristics will predominate and few if any of the other parents will be present.

(A x schizo) X (A x schizo) should produce a mixture of unknown proportions of A and schizo characteristics.

(A x schizo) x (B x schizo) should produce a mixture of unknown proportions of schizo characteristics. When A and B are similar for a characteristic (eg both yellow flower colour) then the mixture should contain some seeldings with that characteristics (eg yellows). When A and B differ for the same characteristic (eg one white, one yellow flower colour) then the mixture may not contain either.

(A x schizo) X schizo should produce basically schizo characteristics with some added but less variability in those characteristics that were similar between A and its own offspring (A x schizo). As an example if A was short and schizo was tall while (A x schizo) was intermediate then the seedlings from (A x schizo) x schizo would be taller than those from (A x schizo) but shorter than schizo and so on.

THIS YELLOW GAVE MANY COLOURS IN SEEDLINGS AS IT HAS BEEN USED WITH MANY VARIETIES. NO DOMINANT COLOUR WHEN USED WITH MODERN DAY VARIETIES, BUT WITH SCHIZO, RED IS THE RESULT

Could you describe these results, in particular any crosses with pinks x that yellow. Best if the results were by cross if the seedlings were different. For example pink1 x yellow produced yellows and pinks, pink2 x yellow only produced pinks, pink3 x yellow produced reds and whites, and so on. Also some idea of the number of seedlings that bloomed in each cross would be useful.

Yellow in flowers can be produced by at least two independent pigment systems - anthocyanin/flavonoid versus carotenoid. Anthocyanins without carotenoids can be reds/purples/lavenders/pinks/whites/creams/light yellows. Carotenoids without anthocyanins can be white/yellow/orange/red/pink. When both carotenoids and anthocyanins are present they can add or not. Brown is often the result when yellow carotenoid is added to red or purple anthocyanin for example.

I know hibiscus flowers contain anthocyanin/flavonoid pigments. I do not know if they can contain carotenoid pigments. So the yellow hibiscus may be a carotenoid and independent of the anthocyanin pigments or it may be a flavonoid and not independent.

Do the red x yellow seedling flowers have the same red colour as the red parent or might they be a mixture of red and yellow - perhaps a more orangey-red or more brownish-red? I am searching for evidence of whether yellow is adding to the flower colour or being hidden completely or mixing like red+white producing pink.

Snow Queen: without any evidence to the contrary, any theoretically possible genetic basis could be the cause of the sport. If it is a 'triploid' Fff then it is entirely possible that either a mutation can occur or that some cells have managed to become FFf. (Equally if it was FFf then some cells could become FFF). If those cells then manage to form the growing point for a branch then when the branch flowers it will be like its parent. That of course means that one of its original parents would have to have been shizopetalus. This is entirely speculative, of course.

Hello Admmad, Much happening at the moment. I am looking into your queries and will get back to you soon.
Thanks, Brian.

Brian,
Regarding the self-seedlings resembling the parent, which is supposedly an F1 hybrid.

I have found that some of the old-time (19th and even early 20th century) rose breeders took a "grex" approach to recording parentage. That is to say, they crossed two varieties, then crossed among the F1 seedlings, and maybe even the F2 and F3, sometimes backcrossing a later generation seedling with an F1. The resulting variety has come down to us described as a cross of A x B, the original parents of the crossbred family.

The Garden (London) 51: 255 (April 10, 1897)
Ridgewood
Gloire Lyonnaise was another difficult Rose to place, notwithstanding M. Guillot stated it to be a cross between Baroness Rothschild and Mme. Falcot, although the progeny of the first and second crossings had to be crossed again before securing this "yellow Hybrid Perpetual," as it was then called.

'Baroness Rothschild' is a tetraploid, 'Mme Falcot' a diploid. Presumably, 'Gloire Lyonnaise' is also a tetraploid.

Perhaps some Hibiscus breeders had a similar attitude, which may also explain the how a supposed F1 hybrid breeds nearly true and does not have the expected chromosome number.

Karl

Brian,
Regarding the self-seedlings resembling the parent, which is supposedly an F1 hybrid.

I have found that some of the old-time (19th and even early 20th century) rose breeders took a "grex" approach to recording parentage. That is to say, they crossed two varieties, then crossed among the F1 seedlings, and maybe even the F2 and F3, sometimes backcrossing a later generation seedling with an F1. The resulting variety has come down to us described as a cross of A x B, the original parents of the crossbred family.

The Garden (London) 51: 255 (April 10, 1897)
Ridgewood
Gloire Lyonnaise was another difficult Rose to place, notwithstanding M. Guillot stated it to be a cross between Baroness Rothschild and Mme. Falcot, although the progeny of the first and second crossings had to be crossed again before securing this "yellow Hybrid Perpetual," as it was then called.

'Baroness Rothschild' is a tetraploid, 'Mme Falcot' a diploid. Presumably, 'Gloire Lyonnaise' is also a tetraploid.

Perhaps some Hibiscus breeders had a similar attitude, which may also explain the how a supposed F1 hybrid breeds nearly true and does not have the expected chromosome number.

Karl

I'm looking to buy a rooted cutting(s) of this. Please contact me. It is very old fashioned but also very hardy and tought, it'll take frost to 25F.