Q: Inter-species crossing

[michael georgiady]

Newsgroups: bionet.plants,rec.gardens,uk.rec.gardening
Subject: Re: Q: Inter-species crossing
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <7p22h7$h4s$1 at nnrp1.deja.com> <37CADA50.B8EAE74C at ping.be> <01bef341$291023e0$51342581 at default> <37CF021E.B644BCAA at worldnet.att.net>
Sender: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: 
Keywords: 
Cc: 


Personally, I see no problem with applying the term
"hybrid" rather broadly, as long as the context in
which it is being used is clear. I routinely make
intraspecific crosses between morphologically dissimilar
plants, which I refer to as hybrids. I also propagate 
plants by selfing them, which produces offspring which
are not hybrids by even the broadest definition.

I would think it would be unwise to make "hybrid"
dependent on taxonomic rank, as slippery as they tend
to be in plants. Is this where the problem lies?



In article <37CF021E.B644BCAA at worldnet.att.net>,
Steve Hinkson  <sphinkson at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Stephen M Jankalski wrote:
>
>> Wasn't this already settled or did you just ignore the answer?
>>
>> A hybrid is a hybrid regardless of the taxonomic ranking of the two taxa
>> involved.
>
>Making the term meaningless.  Stephen, I think you missed Roger's point.  If
>you're right, and I doubt that this book is widely accepted as a botanical
>authority, then the term hybrid is now useless to denote anything, since by
>that silly definition, all sexual reproduction between non-clone plants results
>in a hybrid.
>