From

Location

Message

Date Posted

South Hill, Virginia

Something I was wondering about. Suppose you have two growers make the identical cross in the same year. One is meticulous about his plants while the other is sporadic about his watering, fertilizing etc. Wouldn't it stand to reason that because the more attentive grower had healthier plants that the his seeds may produce healthier offspring?

1/16/2002 4:48:22 PM

canal winchester ohio

That is interesting, you would think that a "healthier" pumpkin would have geneticly stronger seed. But thats just a guess..........Paul

1/16/2002 5:12:13 PM

Long Island,New York

I would think the heathiness of the parent plant would be represented by full, happy cotyledons...but the genetics of a healthy plant would be the same as the genetics in that plant if it was somewhat less than optimized.The healthy cotyledons would get it a better start purhaps....but I think thats where it ends. Maybe we should think that the pampered plant has shown its maximum while the less than pampered could have been much-much more....and the potential is for greater than the optimized one has showed you?...............g

1/16/2002 5:40:27 PM

Deer Park WA

I wonder if the neglected plant, which would allmost certianly produce a smaller fruit, would spend more "energy" in producing stronger seeds in order to perpetuate itself in the harsher environment? This would go along with my theory that all living things adapt to there climate or die out. They must "climatize" and evolve. Just a thought. I plan to grow my 810 Dill strain again this season, the pumpkin has doubled in size each year.... Gadberry

1/16/2002 8:22:33 PM

No Place Special

Maybe it wouldn't get the resources it needed to grow as healthy of a seed as it potentially could have like the same cross of the other seed. Your implying the survival of the fittest? That would mean that the pumpkins goal is to grow BIGGER fruit, and that makes it fitter? Maybe the fitter PLANT would be bigger and not the fruit on the plant, or maybe MORE fruit is fitter? I assume a plant would consider itself fit if it were growing 100# pumpkins, that is far bigger than nature ever intended. This was just something else to mix into the equation. :) I personally believe that the neglected seed would be equal or less than the pampered one. Leaning more towards equal I think. But This is just my opinion, and nothing more. Gads, Id sure love to hear more about the data on your 810 strain! Maybe your on to something that could put a backbone behind one of the many theories presented. With animals, I am a true believer of survival of the fittest, but never really looked at it through a plants eyes before. Maybe FarmerTom can ask his science teachers opinion.
Mike

1/16/2002 10:12:48 PM

Deer Park, WI

In Nature, survival of the fittest occurs because an organism "helps itself" to be the best. If it runs really fast, it survives. If it blends into its surroundings better than others, it survives. If has a natural resistance to bugs, it survives. When you throw in outside influences, such as antibiotics, zoos, or pumpkin growers, survival of the fittest goes out the window. An otherwise morbidly sick woman is allowed to reproduce because of antibiotics. A retarded dolphin gets to reproduce because it is sheltered in a zoo pool. An otherwise suseptible pumpkin plant survives because of pesticides. All these organisms probably would not make it in the wild, and as a result, would serve to strenghen the gene pool, due to their elimination from it. So the only way to know if "stressed" pumpkin seeds are superior to "pampered" pumpkin seeds would be to let them go for a few generations in the wild. Just my way of looking at the argument.

1/17/2002 8:41:05 AM

Greencastle, PA

Survival of the fittest... That is the fittest species at least. When it comes down to it the least fit survive. Notice, how the male peacock in the mating season has those large plumes. These plumes do not help escape preditors, they keep the grounded. Though the might die, the females would chose them for mating, so their genes would survive to the next generation. It seems that the risk takers are chosen by the females over the other males, and since they take such risks they are not very fit. That's my 2 cents on survival of the fittest.
Tom

1/18/2002 6:24:59 PM