revi
gopher
Posts: 47
|
Post by revi on Sept 5, 2012 0:33:31 GMT -5
The question isn't whether Michurin himself had any kind of political inclination or not, but rather his works and the results were against the generally accepted notions of "official scientific community" of that time. Michurin himself was actually strictly against the "Mendelist (in reality Weissmanist)" biology. He gave more emphasis on nurture than simple nature. It's also a fact that before 1917, he got very little attention and assistance form Russian government of that time. "Bureaucratic (in his own words) professors" made apathetic remarks about his works and tried to disrupt his research activity by selling seedlings produced by him at a very low price to foreign buyers and stopped the spreading of seeds and seedlings produced by Michurin so that "gardens cannot be polluted by low-grade seeds". I think you can find that in Michurin's own selected works. The most productive phase of Michurin's life came after 1917 and continued almost to his death. Michurin himself acknowledged that in his letters.
Actually Bakarev's book was some kind of reaction to the response of "official scientific community" towards the works of Michurin-Lysenko. While studying biology in higher classes, I have read that "all the attempts to repeat the experiments done by Michurin-Lysenko were unsuccessful". Later I have searched many places on both net and in libraries, but haven't found the details of such unsuccessful attempts.
That's why I primarily want to know whether anyone got any success by following Michurin's method or not.
In fact, even before 1917, Mendel's theory (basically Morgan-Weissman theory) had faced strong opposition in Russia. Michurin himself in his writings mentioned the papers of Prof. Ritov and Prof. Timiriazev, who were noted scientists in Russia in this regard of that time.
|
|
revi
gopher
Posts: 47
|
Post by revi on Sept 5, 2012 0:37:58 GMT -5
I think that is one reason Burbank avoided discussing details too much. I am sure that Burbank realized that that some of his methods and results were neither politically nor scientifically correct. Rather than get bogged down in arguments, he just kept using methods he knew would work even though the scientific establishment would not approve. In that case, I am pretty sure Burbank too used the same methods as Michurin did whether knowingly or unknowingly. I am sure he was wise enough to understand the outcome if he revealed processes. |
|
|
|
Post by cletus on Sept 5, 2012 10:14:15 GMT -5
Without a doubt Michurin's results ran counter to much of the scientific community. They still do according to some people. The reason I mention the difference between Michurin's own word's and say, Bakharev's, is to illustrate that Michurin only cared about creating new useful plants for the world. Whereas by the time Bakharev published his book, even though there is truth in it, the scientific categories had started to become politicized in a ridged, either/or way. Michurin was not anti-mendel, or anti-gene, like many who were inspired by him. Saying "Michurin was strictly against Mendel" is not true, he just knew Mendelian inheritance wasn't the only thing going on, because its quite obvious when working with perennial fruiters. Michurin didn't suggest getting rid of Mendel's laws altogether (like many subsequent "Michurinists"), but addenda, amendments, and caveats to them. This is part of the problem of nature/nurture discourses in general, people tend to try to frame it as "either/or." It is both/and in an interdependently shaping process, with subtleties that we are only beginning to scratch the surface of.
Castanea, I would be curious if you have read anything about Burbank using "environmental influences" in a conscious, systematic way. Revi, to say that Burbank "used the same methods" is not the same thing as saying various environmental influences affected the process. Michurin elaborated the conditions of graft hybridization first, which is not to say others didn't in some way effect a similar process. Many had, since Darwin and before, suspected the possibility of graft hybridization (not a chimaera here). Michurin discovered the specific conditions so he could elaborate them in clear principles to advance plant breeding. I have no doubt Burbank had to have effected to similar process throughout all of his work, I just think saying he used Michurin's methods is a bit of a stretch (but perhaps he was aware through Vavilov or on his own of mentor pollen, pollen mixes, graft hybrids, and the rest).
I will get there and document some of these experiments on here I promise, but my life is chaotic and I'm pretty young with limited resources. Its been pretty much self-education so far, which has been why I've been able to explore this subject without much of the bias of the 'prevailing wisdom'. Revi, take a look at the holy basil hybrid thread I started if you haven't already. When I started the thread I had been thinking of trying to hybridize the Tulsi in my friend's garden. The initial replies were like "interesting idea, but its pretty much not going to work." Turns out a week later I actually find Tulsi hybrids with tastier leaves, lemony smell, and different flowers. People's initial supposition, even for interspecies hybrids, is that it probably can't work. Michurin first noticed hybrids in his garden when he planted different types of fruit trees nearby, and it inspired him to explore and play with this process, never mind what the orthodoxy says. As for Burbank, he no doubt played with similar processes, at this point I'm just not sure what principles he derived with regard to environmental influences (broadly speaking) in order to fully compare this aspect of their research.
|
|
revi
gopher
Posts: 47
|
Post by revi on Sept 5, 2012 12:27:13 GMT -5
Cletus,
I have a translated version of Bakhrev's book in my store. In this book, Bakharev had given references of Michurin's own writings. There Michurin clearly criticized Mendelian schools. I don't know whether Michurin himself REALLY written those or it's Bakharev's creation. Whatsoever, the point is that MENDEL HIMSELF HADN'T WRITTEN ANYTHING ABOUT HEAVENLY CHARACTER OF GENES, NEVER CAN BE INFLUENCED BY EXTERNAL FACTORS. What he had done can be called as just to show that how characters have been transferred to the offsprings.
But, I have no doubt that Michurin was strictly against the Weissman school of thought that had been propagating at that time in the name of Mendel. This school totally denied any chance of change in gene due to external environmental factors. As per this school, genetic changes are totally random and cannot be controlled by human effort. What we can do is to choose suitable samples as per our own need. Michurin was strictly against such view. HE CLEARLY SAID IN MANY OF HIS WRITINGS THAT WE HUMANS CAN CERTAINLY CONTROL THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PLANT AND ANIMALS IN OUR DESIRED DIRECTION. This is the basic motto behind all the works done by him.
I am curious to know, whether you have followed any method of Miichurin to create the Tulsi hybrid or not. Though it's pretty much clear to me that they way you have created the tulsi hybrid is contrary to general belief of present day biology.
|
|
|
|
Post by cletus on Sept 5, 2012 14:40:57 GMT -5
You have a book store, nice man! Maybe someday when I visit India I can check it out. Where are you? Just a quick aesthetic remark, when you emphasize its easier on the eyes, IMO, to use underlines. Again, you make many great points. Its not easy to suss out the differences of mendelism vs mendel, darwinism vs. darwin, michurinism vs. michurin, etc. and you seem to have navigated them fairly adeptly.
The jury is still out on exactly what the apparent basil hybrid is. I just found out that Mrs. Burns' Lemon Basil is the lemon variety we suspect as a probable parent. Evaluations need to be done to see exactly what we have here. I will post an update in that thread. Searching around there seems to be some difference in what Mrs. Burns' Lemon basil is, pink or white flowered, O. canum or O. basilicum. Some of the apparent hybrids did have a more Tulsi taste than others, and we'll have to do other trials of Mrs. Burns' accessions to test for seed hardiness in a temperate climate. Its interesting that some Mrs. Burns' accessions are said to have pink flowers just like Tulsi, which is seed hardy here.
|
|
|
|
Post by castanea on Sept 5, 2012 20:03:05 GMT -5
...... Castanea, I would be curious if you have read anything about Burbank using "environmental influences" in a conscious, systematic way. Revi, to say that Burbank "used the same methods" is not the same thing as saying various environmental influences affected the process. Michurin elaborated the conditions of graft hybridization first, which is not to say others didn't in some way effect a similar process. Many had, since Darwin and before, suspected the possibility of graft hybridization (not a chimaera here). Michurin discovered the specific conditions so he could elaborate them in clear principles to advance plant breeding. I have no doubt Burbank had to have effected to similar process throughout all of his work, I just think saying he used Michurin's methods is a bit of a stretch (but perhaps he was aware through Vavilov or on his own of mentor pollen, pollen mixes, graft hybrids, and the rest). ...... I don't know that Burbank specifically used the same processes Michurin used. Burbank often refused to provide details but he gave hints when he repeatedly mentioned that different plants did different things under different conditions. I don't think he wanted to give away secrets. Burbank did make many interesting statements that most ignored as meaningless or irrelevant. I suspect they were all quite meaningful. For example, Burbank said something to the effect that he liked to examine the past history of the plant. He also made numerous statements to the effect that plants will try to grow to please you. He always began a breeding experiment by imagining exactly what he wanted and working toward that goal, always keeping his intention in mind. These comments are always dismissed by scientists but they expressed principles that were very important to Burbank. |
|
revi
gopher
Posts: 47
|
Post by revi on Sept 6, 2012 10:36:46 GMT -5
You have a book store, nice man! Maybe someday when I visit India I can check it out. Where are you? Just a quick aesthetic remark, when you emphasize its easier on the eyes, IMO, to use underlines. Again, you make many great points. Its not easy to suss out the differences of mendelism vs mendel, darwinism vs. darwin, michurinism vs. michurin, etc. and you seem to have navigated them fairly adeptly. Cletus, I am from Kolkata (Calcutta). If you ever visit my city, you are welcome at my home. Whatsoever, I have not only suss out differences but also similarities too. And if you ask me, I just want to look at the past without any kind of glass on my eyes and just want to take what is truth and fact, nothing more. |
|
revi
gopher
Posts: 47
|
Post by revi on Sept 23, 2012 2:01:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cletus on Nov 22, 2012 18:21:46 GMT -5
acsjug.org/images/stories/PART%202/BREEDING/10.pdfwww.sumarios.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/gmr1138.pdf"Cassava rootstocks of varieties UnB 201 and UnB 122 grafted with scions of Manihot fortalezensis were prepared for anatomic study. The roots were cut, stained with safranin and alcian blue, and examined microscopically, comparing them with sections taken from ungrafted roots. There was a significant decrease in number of pericyclic fibers, vascular vessels and tyloses in rootstocks. They exhibited significant larger vessels. These changes in anatomic structure are a consequence of genetic effects caused by transference of genetic material from scion to rootstock. The same ungrafted species was compared. This is the first report on anatomic changes due to grafting in cassava." I read somewhere that an Indonesian farmer originated this practice after he took a grafting class. He tried grafting the wild manihot to cassava and noticed a huge root boost.
|
|
|
|
Post by cletus on Nov 22, 2012 18:23:09 GMT -5
Great links Revi, thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarJones on Nov 26, 2012 10:09:06 GMT -5
It sounds funny to read, but it is something that Burbank understood implicitly. He "told" his plants what to do and they did it.
DarJones
|
|
|
|
Post by 12540dumont on Nov 26, 2012 20:38:32 GMT -5
I think Burbank was right. One of you recommended that I tell a plant I was going to pull it out if it didn't shape up. Well, it started to grow. I'm planning on not so many trials this year, so I can get around to telling certain plants what I think they ought to do. I never grew this plant before. It's a Serpente de Siciliy, Cuccuzze, Lagenaria siceraria - I told Leo that it would need a trellis. (I did not know that it would need a trellis). I'll post some photos. This one was taken before our frost. It's a really beautiful plant. I told it to grow huge, and it did. It ate the trellis and took over another. I did not speak to it in Italian. But I did speak lovingly to it every time I walked past it. It was just so beautiful with no squash bugs! Attachments:
|
|
revi
gopher
Posts: 47
|
Post by revi on Dec 30, 2012 22:37:04 GMT -5
bulbnrose.x10.mx/Heredity/Lysenko/Given above is the link to some original writings of Lysenko and in one, he described the method of increasing potato yield by just changing their planting time. What is interesting are the footnotes of the writings, where examples along with links of such observations has been mentioned. The website is about amateur gardening and in the heredity section, it has a good amount of rare writings including both from Michurin and Burbank.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarJones on Dec 31, 2012 15:27:38 GMT -5
This is good. Italian is a very emotional language so it you had spoken in Italian, you might have scared the poor plant to death. As it is, you used the barbaric but effective Amerenglish which means it thought you might be a buffoon with a lawnmower. I tried speaking to my plants in Cherokee but only the squash and beans pay any attention. Carrots don't speak any known language and potatoes insist on being addressed in Quechua.
DarJones
|
|
revi
gopher
Posts: 47
|
Post by revi on Jan 4, 2013 12:15:53 GMT -5
|
|
