What a great question. In some ways I think it's a great point and agree. It seems that as breeders, especially of ornamental species, that the hybrids usually don't compete that well in untended yards and will die out if left on their own (not all of course). Maybe this is a testament of our goofiness selecting for things like huge petals or odd colors over ease to grow. Sometimes we have a strange perception of what is beautiful over what is practical in nature too. If a plant can get insects to come pollinate it with an inch size flower, why should it produce one 3 inches across? Breeding and selection, however, goes on in nature all the time as environmental conditions change (with the help of humans or not) favoring and selecting certain plants in populations over others. As plant breeders we just add extra selection pressure and throw out ones we don't like. What selection pressure!!! Poor plants.

What would life be like, however, if our ancestors didn't start saving wheat with bigger kernals and stronger stalks or potatoes with larger tubers that stored well and...? We'd be pretty hungry now if we relied on natural populations without any selection for traits we enjoy.

When I see people introducing new plants that have not been fully tested and flop as varieties (like many of the new coral bell hybrids introduced because of georgous foliage, but not tested for winter hardiness or ease of growth) I agree that they should leave well enough alone and spare the gardening community, but when new plants are tested and perform as advertised and fit a nice niche I am very thankful for all the effort that went into them.

Just some rambling,
David

I'll add my rambling.....

Naw, ornamental hort would be nowhere without new introductions and dedicated breeders. The same goes for agronomy. Could you imagine what we'd be missing without orchid hybrids, for example? Most orchid species are harder to care for and rebloom than hybrids. Hybrid vigor is well-known in other ornamental and food crops. Even the folks just "playing around" are having harmless fun. It's fortunate plants aren't sentient and have such easily-manipulated genomes!

Bees and insects have pollenate plants, and I am sure you would consider that natural. Bees are just one of the species that live on this earth. Homo sapiens are another species (Or, perhaps a hybrid, according to some theorists). Is it more natural for a bee to pollenate a plant than for a person, just because a bee does it by instinct, without intention to create a new plant?

Pardancanda - I agree with the above posts. However, I do have concerns, and that is when hybridizing goes beyond the boundaries of strict crossing to obtain different forms and colors - when foreign genes are introduced and added to the mix. Who knows what the long term results could be. There is potential for improvements, also potential for harm; for instance, when linked with a substance that deters normal interaction with pollinators.

Connecting roses with this - roses are related to a number of other plants which are a food source. Problems here are not too likely, but I think in the realm of possibility. And I would be very concerned about that.

But just normal hybridizing? Let's do it - it's fun, and such a joy to see each new flower, unique in some special way.

Does that make sense?

John,

The point made about bees stuck home with me. Aren't we just acking like bees with more intelligence..hopefully. :-)

My only concern is when plants are genetically altered and the full ramifications of that change(s) have not been thought out or tested. For example, a new pest-resistant corn, known as Bt corn, carries a gene derived from a bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis. This bacterium produces the Bt toxin, killing corn borer pests that try to eat the plant.

When fed leaves of milkweed which had been dusted with Bt corn pollen, regular corn pollen or no pollen, half of those monarch caterpillars fed Bt corn pollen died within four days. All those fed regular corn pollen or no pollen survived.

This transgenic plant produces a wind-borne pollen that can kill monarch butterflies; a harmless nonpest insect. ­ The corn belt is the heart of the Monarch's breeding range and the long-term effect of Bt corn pollen on this species is unknown. I don't know what the answer is but it's scary to think about some of the "what if's".

Bob

Can you imagine somebody crossing a kudzu with an eater plant and as a result having a monster vine that breaks the glass of your window while you are sleeping and eat you with all your family and pets! I agree with Pardancanda; hybridizing might be wrong.

I'm worried more about science education in this country. Clearly it's not reaching everyone.

The scary stuff that's going on in GMOs are not the result of hybridization alone if at all.

Hi all,

This is an interesting discussion. I think that hybridizing is natural in all phases of nature all the way down to the bacterial level. Without natural mutations and hybrids organisms of all kinds are less able to adapt to changing conditions and are less likely to be able to continue by reproducing and populating.

Man does nothing that does not happen with nature. Even when you consider plant modification by the use of recombinant DNA methods it still is done in a fairly natural manner. By this I mean that the DNA is patched into a virus, the virus and target cell are placed together in lab conditions and the virus injects and patches the chromosomal changes into the target DNA. In humans this important work has a long standing in certain cancer cures. In plants it could mean that the blue pigment of Delphiniums called Delphinine could be added to the genome of a rose. But are blue roses natural? Of course!

One of the things that Ralph Moore told me years ago was that he's had success grafting a raspberry onto rose understock. Ralph Moore invented miniature roses by the way. He said he wanted to grow a rose that would form rasp or black berries after the bloom and was playing with some crosses to see if anything would take. By the way, he plants out about 100,000 seed crosses a year to get just a few garden worthy introductions.

Personally, I'm still trying to cross a $20 bill with a Lunaria and see if it'll grow.......

Bob

Here is a link that might be useful: Husband Bob's Adventures

I would say no. I think that it is just as normal as when animal's cross breed plants. Just that we cross breed plants on purpose and animal's do it naturally.

I would be a hypocrite if I said there was anything wrong with hybridizing. The plants I enjoy the most in my garden, fruits, vegetables, roses and other ornamentals would not exist if not for hybridizing. Sure I like the _idea_ of growing vegetables that have been around for a long time. The reality is though, my Brandywine tomatoes just don't grow as well as some of the newer varieties. So I plant both. Besides, even if I were strict in only growing heirloom, I would still not have a garden free from hybridizing. I appreciate and respect the people who save heirloom seeds and fight to keep older varieties of plants in existence. I am not one of those people though.

However, I do have a problem with genetic engineering. Changing the genes of a plant or animal in a way that could never exist in the natural world is going too far in my opinion. Yes life is constantly changing...hopefully evolving for the better, but I think there should be some speed limits. Genetic Engineering creates changes too fast IMHO. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I heard that almost all soy beans in existence today have been crossed with genetically engineered ones. If this is true I find that quite frightening. What happens if after several generations, we find out that genetically engineered food is slowly causing horrible mutations in human genes? I'm not saying it does, but we really can't know for sure what could happen by splicing genes that don't belong together. It sure would be nice to be ABLE to go back to the known "safe" food that have been around for thousands of years if in the future we do see side effects. So again, I respect those people who keep older varieties around.

Hybridizing ornamentals is more frivolous than wrong. If you think about it how many hybrid tea roses and daylilies do we really need? On the other hand itis no more frivolous than art.

GMO's are slightly different. The Bt Corn monarch butterfly controversy is born out of an experiment that fed the larva doses of pollen that they would never receive in the real world. Monarch butterflies in corn fields would be killed anyway by the use of organic and synthetic pesticides. Will GM food cause human mutations? No.

The only use I find opjectionable is developing pesticide resistance into to crops.

I say that there is nothing wrong with hybridization. How did we exist if it wasn't for the ancient Native Americans of Southern America if they hadn't cultivated maize-corn from teosinte and tripsecum species? What about Africa's cucumbers, watermelons, and gaurds? And carrots, parsely from the Persians? (I'm not too sure about the last one) Humans at our level of population cannot go out wild berries and edibles and maintain such high population.

Although I see GE a potential problem, I do not fear that I will "mutate" if I ate a GE tomato. Genes are not evil, but there is good concern for people to worry especially those with food allergies. But just because a certain gene came from a peanut, it doesn't mean that people with peanut allergies are to panic. How do they know if they are allergic to that specific peanut gene? GE has a great potential for wonderful and scary things, but lets act reasonable.

Man-Eating Kudzu monsters scare me.... ;)

Introduction of weed species is a problem for everyone. Most of the weeds in my yard are not native. I suppose hybridization could lead to a more virulent weed. But, I can't think of a single weed that is the result of hybridizing. The prickly pears that spread across Australia are species. The scotch broom in my yard is a species. Kudzu, Bermuda grass, bindweed, etc. are all sps. One would think that hybrid vigor would lead to hybrid weeds.

Unless something changed since I was in high school, species do not cross-polinate (and produce viable offspring). There will never be more than one eating-kudzu (if that is even possible, and I doubt it - unless they are at least in the same family, they probably don't have compatible numbers of chromosomes.) It would take a really weird (and highly improbably) virus to transmit the eating characteristics to a kudzu (or vice-versa).

David Z is right - nearly every plant we rely on today is the result of selective savings of hybridizations.

You might as well suggest that the use of language is immoral - where would be without language? (Still clanned in caves I 'spect.)

As for GM - I definately understand the fear that people have, and used to be dead set agin' it myself.

But I want to suggest that GM may be seen 200 years from now as I see hybridization today. With the immense pressure humans have put on world ecology in the last 100 years (with no sign of 'greening' - or letting up), our GM skills may be the only thing that keeps us eatin'.

We are losing hundreds of species each week to 'development'. Now that is what I call 'too fast'.

Roger

I do not think Pardancanda was saying that hybridizing is wrong. If he was, that would be intersting... Since his user name is the name of a plant that is a Hybrid:

Pardancanda = Belamcanda chinensis x Pardanthopsis dichotoma.

Margaret

Most people I hear worrying about Genetically Enineering grass so you wont have to mow it so often, are the same people who sit around saying "Gee.. I wonder if we can cross pot and tomatoes so we dont get caught." It seems those are also the same people who talk about hybridizing like its the devil while they sit around smoking "Purple Haze"

Alright, here's my 2 cents. Hybridizing is just forcing pollination to follow a specific course. Pollination would happen without our help, but we are just trying to make the results predictable. Now, if we were tweaking the genes artificially, by splicing the DNA, that I'd be against because that would not be a function that happens in nature.

Man-made hybrids are not also not natural. The stuff we grow in our gardens would just not happen or functon in nature. Think about corn-- it is depended on humans to plant. Such unpratical cobs with such closely clumped ears would had made corn an extinct plant had it not been cared by humans. There are many things that are not natural to many cultivated plants compared to their species kin. Roses with many petals that could hinder its pollination; amphidiploids of species; huge fruit sizes; all unnatural. To say that GE is not natural is correct, but so is human induced hybridization.

There are definitely some hybrids that are unnatural, that is, would never happen in nature. For example, would it be possible in nature for the pollen of an Asian azalea to get to the US and hybridize with a native azalea? Almost certainly not. But what about the many azalea and rhododendren species on the East Coast of the US that often produce natural hybrids? It was happening before man even knew how to farm crops, much less ornamental shrubs. However, gene exchange happens quite frequently in many species of plants, animals and bacteria, so in some cases you could argue genetic engineering is just as natural as hybridization. In fact, that is how bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics so fast. One species develops resistance, and gives the genes conveying that resistance to other bacterial species through DNA loops called plasmids. One mutation in one cell can ultimately make dozens of different germ species resistant.

In corn, transposons, also known as "jumping genes", often move around the genome, splicing in and out (which is why Indian corn is randomly multi-colored, pigment genes are moving). So, it can be argued that genetic engineering that simply amplifies the same gene instead of adding new genes is natural, which has been used to create GE salmon that grow twice as fast and as large as normal (amplifying genes coding for growth rate and body mass).

Viruses often splice their own DNA or RNA into a cell's DNA. Oftentimes during replication, pieces of cell DNA or RNA get mixed with the viral RNA or DNA. When the virus leaves the cell, it carries a part of that cell's genetic material with it. If it infects another cell, it can splice that new DNA into it. This in effect is natural genetic engineering, and is one of the main ways we transfer genes in GE labs. Of course, this is restricted mostly to less complex species (bacteria, fungi, some plants).

Hi Nick, I found your post very interesting. I cannot believe how much has been learned since I studied genetics in the early 60's. I am back with Mendelson and Burbank. Good luck to you, we need all the knowledge we can get to feed our growing human population and still have an environment left. Good for you.

Of course it isnt wrong, this may be a repeat, I dont have time to read all the posts, Im leaving in a few moments, but in nature, the chance that two daylilies will cross isnt THAT unlikely. Just because we increase the likeliness doesnt make us evil.

Hi

I'm confused. This post originated over a year ago (April 10, 2001) by a person who is no longer a member of gardenweb. Or at least he has the only page I can't call up by clicking on it.

While he/she did post an alluring and thought provoking question, I'm just surprised that there are still replies posted to it.

Marbree

I really don't think the good Lord minds if we polish up his handy work.Every time you go to the store to buy fruit that look perfect you see hybrizing at work.
Garden On Don
But anything can be abused!

The thing about the kudzu is that the animal eating plants don't capture their food, the food come to it so you would have to go into the kudzu and if somebody was that dumb then they might not live anyway. So if they were crossed i twould be not different in how they aquire food, hopefully...;)
Matt

rogerhall wrote:

"Unless something changed since I was in high school, species do not cross-polinate (and produce viable offspring)."

Now THAT'S what's wrong with science education in the U.S. Teaching ideas that were firmly disproven in the early 19th century. Yet it was still being taught when I was in High School 30-odd years ago.

Even some intergeneric hybrids give fertile progeny. Look at Michurin's hybrid of Sorbus aucuparia x Craetagus called Ivan's Belle:
http://www.raintreenursery.com/catalog/productdetails.cfm?ProductID=D711

There are many good reasons to raise hybrids. Some plants have a very brief growing season, which adapts them to their particular conditions. Under cultivation they do not need to be so careful to avoid heat, drought and cold. So, we cross them with relatives and get plants that keep their leaves for 6-8 months rather than 3 or 4 as they do in the wild. This is as true for Amaryllis as for Roses. We get plants that grow faster and survive better in our gardens.

In making hybrids we are often behaving a bit more like beetles (which are opportunistic pollinators) than like bees. Related species may be kept separate by appealing to different pollinators. Among Iris, Glads, Roses, Amaryllis -- and many many more genera -- different pollinators do much to isolate the species. Rosa spinosissima, for example, is pollinated in the wee hours of morning by several species of insect that complete their work before daybreak. Other roses are more commonly pollinated in the morning after sunrise. There are moth-pollinated Iris species as well as bee-pollinated. Amaryllis species may be visited by bees, butterflies, moths or bats.

Here's an example of hybrids that reverted to the parental types when the natural pollinators (hummingbirds and bumblebees) were allowed to work their magic.
http://www.bulbnrose.com/Heredity/mimulus/mimulus.html

We can't help changing plants, even if we just start cultivating them. Read what happened to Tarweeds that were planted in a garden without hybridization.
http://www.bulbnrose.com/Heredity/Tarweeds/tarweed.html

If we cultivated only "wild" plants in their unimproved forms, we would have to duplicate their native environments -- right down to pollinators, temperature ranges and photoperiod variations -- in order to preserve them in their "natural" state. What a bother!

And once we have given up on this extreme purism, hybridization is seen to be just another way plants (and animals) have of surviving and changing to fit new conditions.

Karl

Here is a link that might be useful: Anomalous Heredity

It is my opinion that there is nothing wrong with hybridizing. We are stewards of this earth and have the God given right (perhaps our responsibility) to create new things. As a rose hybridizer I have found that creating something new, something never seen before, must certainly be comparable to God's joy at seeing his creation, even if in a small way. I think this is the reason he gave us plants for us to change (not improve but change) so that we could understand his joy.

As was pointed out, there are many natural hybrids in nature, and some of these are inter generic in nature. Thousands of inter-specific hybrids and many inter-generic hybrids are perfectly fertile and produce valid offspring. So where is our work different?

As for geneticly engineered plants, the extra genes are generally added via the intermediation of a bacterium, Agrobacterium Tumefasciens, and this exact same thing has been cited as occuring fairly commonly in nature. Many virus do the same thing. It has been stated that this genetic transfer has been very beneficial in the evolution of higher organisms. Again, where is our work different?

We might point out that without this GE, we would not have the newer access to human growth hormone, insulin, and many other medications we have come to rely on.

George

George,

We also should keep in mind that gene-splicing allows traditional plants to be patented -- and that the patent carries over when other strains are contaminated by pollen from the tainted strain.

So, if your heirloom corn -- maintained by your family for a century or more -- becomes contaminated by pollen from your neighbor's Monsantoized frankencorn, you will lose your crop and face charges of "theft of intellectual property".

Gene-splicing is all about profits, not saving humanity.

Karl

Karl

Personally I disagree with about 90% of what you say.

Plant patents do not accrue to traits inherited from a patented parent. If I take a patented rose and ues its pollen or seed, the result is mine and totally free of patent.

Bred in sterility is a damned hard thing to create, requiring introduction of at least 3 or more traits, all in the right sequence. Getting a contamination in your heirloom corn would be darn near impossible. Also, your heirloom corn is not pure after even 1 generation unless it was grown on an isolated island miles away from any other corn that could wind pollinate it. Odds are that you corn is genetically different from that of 10 years ago, let alone several generations.

For saving humanity, the "golden rice" which was gene spliced has done more to feed third world peoples than all the obsolete heirloom strains in the world.

Damn right it's about profits! It should be, but it's also because those alarmists who screamed about genetic modification demanded induced sterility to prevent expansion of GM plants into the environment, and are now screaming foul because they are hoist by their own petard.

George

George,

Patenting plants that must be propagated vegetatively is very different from patenting genes. You may breed with a patented rose, for example, but you cannot develop your own "Round Up Ready" plants by using strains carrying engineered genes patented by Monsanto.

"Heirloom" open pollinated strains of corn have been maintained for decades by careful selection. 'Golden Bantam' is just one example. Of course there will be on-going variations, just as there are with species. But it is still 'Golden Bantam'.

How has yellow rice helped anyone? At best it will provide about 1/12th the carotene needed to prevent vitamin A deficiency. The problem is not that people of the "third world" are not getting enough carotene in their rice, but that they are forced to subsist on rice in the first place. They would be much better off getting their carotene from richer sources like squash, tomatoes and peppers -- all of which can be grown anywhere rice will grow.

And if you look into the yellow rice story a little more deeply you will learn that Syngenta "donated" the patent to avoid a patent dispute. The company is currently attempting to gain monopoly control over at least 40 plant species, and possibly over flowering plant species not yet discovered.

This is not merely about profits, it is unmitigated greed -- a blatant attempt to monopolize food production around the world. The next step, already operating in occupied iraq, is to outlaw heirloom strains and seed-saving in general. Farmers will be forced to buy seed every year from the multinational masters of the food world.

BTW, the "Terminator Gene" was developed to prevent seed-saving, not to protect the environment.

Karl

Here is a link that might be useful: Syngenta Claims Multi-Genome Monopoly

I'm avoiding links to articles by GMO "alarmists".

Geoforce wrote:
"Plant patents do not accrue to traits inherited from a patented parent. If I take a patented rose and ues its pollen or seed, the result is mine and totally free of patent.

Bred in sterility is a damned hard thing to create, requiring introduction of at least 3 or more traits, all in the right sequence. Getting a contamination in your heirloom corn would be darn near impossible."

The difference between plant patents and gene patents needs to be clarified because otherwise it sounds like you are saying that offspring of patented plants is free to use, but impossible to get.

On this Harper's Magazine page skip down to "Nov 28" where it says, "The company had no explanation for how the protein, which is the result of genetic engineering, made its way into normal corn; biologists pointed out that it was probably the result of natural hybridization between GM and non-GM corn planted too close together."

Here is a case of a man who saved canola seed from plants that he noticed were immune to the herbicide Roundup. The plants apparently were from seed that blew into his field. Monsanto sued him for using their gene.

How were these seed produced from sterile plants? They weren't. This page, while from 1999 reports that Monsanto will not use the terminator gene in commercial crops.

Geoforce wrote: "...the 'golden rice' which was gene spliced has done more to feed third world peoples..."

Golden rice wasn't bred for higher production. It only has vitamin A mainly to prevent blindness.

Here is a link to an article written by someone who was involved in the development of Golden Rice. It's rather long, but skip down to the section titled "Making Best Use of..." where they have to deal with the Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) of others. They did an audit and the "outcome was shocking" because, "There were 70 IPRs and TPRs belonging to 32 different companies and universities, which we had used in our experiments and for which we would need free licenses"

I think people are missing the real cause of these problems. Personally, I think Monsanto is a big evil corporation. But it's not unique in this respect. GM is a big evil corporation. Microsoft is a big evil corporation. Walmart is a big evil corporation. So are lots, and lots of others. They exist for one purpose and one purpose only: to make money for their shareholders (primarily for a few dozen of the biggest ones, really). We keep them in check with laws, and they do their best to operate within these laws to the extent required to keep from being shut down. I don't especially like most of them, but I think they are the price of living in a capitalist society and I like a lot of the things that come with that, so they're a necessary evil.

If Monsanto sued some guy whose only crime is that their pollen blew into his field and won, I don't blame Monsanto...they're doing what everything they can to maintain control of their technology and maximize profits. I blame the law that says they have a right to sue over that.

Plant patents have served to protect innovation in plant development for 100+ years, and plant variety protection for a good long while too. Utility patents can restrict the use of these plants as parents for the production of commercial varieties. These, in my opinion, are enough. Nobody cares which specific genes are in there, it's the totality of them that matters.

The idea that one can take a naturally occurring gene, stick it someplace new, and suddenly that gene is your invention is silly, and the legal precedent should never have been set, because now there is way too much money wrapped up in it for it to ever be changed. You want build your own gene, design your own protein, build it amino acid by amino acid, string together the nucleotides: fine, it's yours. But the idea that we can assign ownership to something that is the product of thousands or millions of years of evolution is both silly and wrong.

Elakazal,

Monsanto has created a new sort of protection racket. In principle, of course, a farmer may choose not to use RoundUp herbicide, in which case he won't need RoundUp Ready crops. But there is the problem of "accidental" overspray. In effect, Monsanto is telling farmers to buy their patented seeds or risk having an accident.

It is somewhat amusing that even Syngenta (which also sells glyphosphate based herbicides) has criticised Monsanto for recommending overuse of RoundUp, and for not warning against monocropping the same resistant strains year after year.

This issue may soon be moot, though, because weeds are becoming resistant. Is anyone surprised? It was inevitable that this would occur, just as Bt resistance in insect pests is inevitable.

So what happens next? When glyphosphate herbicides kill nothing but un-spliced crop plants, will farmers be persuaded to follow the same failed course with another generation of herbicides and patented herbicide-resistant crops?

How in the world did farmers manage to grow crops for thousands of years without the benefit of herbicides? Could it be that they selected crops that held their own against weeds and resisted common pests?

And whatever happened to crop rotation. Years ago my grandfather told me that his grandfather had rotated crops -- long before it became fashionable. So I know the information is not new. And yet today we hear farmers being encouraged to grow the same strains in the same fields every year. They believe in the magic of chemical fertilizers and herbicides and pesticides. They believe so deeply that they have forgotten the old virtues of crop rotation, companion planting, and general cooperation with the operating principles of the natural world.

As glyphosphates lose their effectiveness, and no new herbicides are currently in the pipeline, some farmers may learn that "old-fashioned" does not always mean "obsolete".

Karl

Elakazal,

I just noticed a minor detail. You stated that plant patents have been around for 100+ years. In the US, the first plant patent was issued in 1930 for the rose 'New Dawn'.

It is perhaps ironic that 'New Dawn' originated as a sport from 'Dr. W Van Fleet', rather than from the efforts of a plant breeder.

Dr. Van Fleet, who raised his namesake rose, died before plant patents became available. I doubt that he would have patented it even if he could. He was associated with the USDA at a time when the people working there were primarily interested in contributing to the general good rather than increasing their personal wealth. At that time, I'm guessing, the very thought that public-funded research could be patented and handed over to corporations would have appalled Van Fleet, Fairchild, Swingle, Cook, Smith and the others.

How times have changed.

Karl King

"There are definitely some hybrids that are unnatural, that is, would never happen in nature."

No! No! No! No! No! All hybrids are natural. Human beings are natural. Plutonium is natural. Everything is natural.
So in fact, the word natural is meaningless. It's a retarded word. False dichotomies are one of the marks of a stupid person. Think about this: human beings are a part of nature, so whatever we do is natural. So the question isn't, "is this natural?" It's "is this safe enough to consume?" People tend to fear what they don't understand, so genetic engineering and even hybridization seem scary to many people. But the truth is, those things have the potential to make our lives more productive and healthy. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, as they say.

Seedboy,

I see that you have resurrected a rather old and controversial message thread. I agree with a lot of what you say, and since hybridization in nature is very common, because bees do an awful lot of it, I think the answer to the original question of whether hybridizing is "wrong" would be a resounding "NO!".

"People tend to fear what they don't understand, so genetic engineering and even hybridization seem scary to many people. But the truth is, those things have the potential to make our lives more productive and healthy."

I don't disagree with that.

"So the question isn't, "is this natural?" It's "is this safe enough to consume?" "

Safety is a legitimate concern. Plutonium may be natural, but it can be very "unsafe". Tomatoes and Black Nightshade are closely related and it might be possible to cross them and get a very poisonous tomato. Something like that could even be done by a bee, to produce a "natural" hybrid that was unsafe for human consumption. I would hope that the growers producing tomato seed don't have a bunch of nightshades growing nearby.

The techniques of genetic engineering are growing ever more capable. Glow-in-the-dark aquarium fish are probably safe. But how much testing do you suppose was actually done to guarantee that? And if people flush them, use them as bait, or release them into a stream, can we expect to see glow-in-the-dark minnows appear in our lakes? That would probably be OK, but I would be very surprised if any tests have actually been made to determine what unintended consequences might result from glow-in-the-dark fishes escaping into our lakes.

Drugs that have been approved by the FDA regularly turn out to be dangerous enough to justify recalling them. Some dangerous cars have been "recalled". But the problem with genetically modified life forms is that you can't recall them, if you need to. I think the vast majority of us Americans have already eaten genetically modified foods without even knowing it. And I'm not just talking about that famous case when some GMO corn intended for animal food got used for corn chips instead. I'm talking about genetically modified tomatoes in the grocery store produce section that aren't labeled as GMO.

Like it or not, we are all now guinea pigs in the brave new genetically modified world. So far, it has apparently been safe. Genetically modified organisms are becoming increasingly useful to mankind and profiteering corporations. But in my opinion, it isn't a question of whether something can go wrong, but when, and how bad it might be.

That said, I am an amateur zinnia breeder, purely as a hobby. But if the genetic engineers can produce a glow-in-the-dark fish, they can surely produce a blue zinnia that we could use in our breeding programs. For that matter, it might look kind of neat if my zinnia patch was glowing brightly in all different colors at night.

MM

Interesting discussion.

The best pro-hybridizing arguments I've read are in Luther Burbank's 1939 book "Partner of Nature" (reprinted in 2001 by University Press of the Pacific). This is strictly about cross-pollinization and selection.

Fears about the "Pandora's Box" of genetically modified organisms are common. It really is being done, most often by "shot-gunning" cell nucleus material from one plant or animal into reproductive cells of another. You can come up with new DNA that never would have been obtained through sexual reproduction. The potential for new species is there (like more duck-billed platypuses?), perhaps perennial versions of tender plants, or as someone mentioned, raspberries on roses. But this business is about humans actively participating in evolution, which could certainly have unforseen consequences. One that I wonder about is the creation of new organisms to break down cellulose to make fuel.

Most people don't understand that all life on this planet is related, that all living cells share the same RNA. And we have no evidence that it exists anywhere else in the universe.

Anyway, just some random thoughts about messing with Mother Nature.

eskota,

"It really is being done, most often by "shot-gunning" cell nucleus material from one plant or animal into reproductive cells of another."

Unfortunately, that technique is accessible to amateurs, but some professionals use it as well. Some professionals also use micro-needles under a microscope to directly inject a chosen piece of DNA and/or RNA directly inside a single cell, and that isn't "shot-gunning".

The laws that govern genetic engineering apply only at a national level. There are countries that don't apply any controls over genetic experiments within their borders.

I am concerned about the risks from possible unintended consequences of genetically modified organisms.

"One that I wonder about is the creation of new organisms to break down cellulose to make fuel."

I think they already have such organisms and are producing fuel from cellulose on an experimental basis right now. I think they are just tweaking the efficiency and the economics to develop profitable commercial production facilities.

They are also looking for organisms in the ocean to produce hydrogen from sunlight, water, and air with carbon dioxide. It would be great to simultaneously remove the greenhouse gases from our air and produce clean-burning fuel in the process.

MM

MM,

I know this is going far astray from a regular hybridizing discussion, but those genetically modified yeasts and bacteria for breaking down cellulose make me think of Kurt Vonnegut's "ice-9" fantasy of scientists coming up with a way to freeze water at room temperature. Almost all plant life would be at risk if efficient cellulose eaters escaped and infected the globe. Talk about fast compost...I'd put this in the realm of science fiction, but then you read about U of Florida research with modified E. coli, now being commercialized by a company named Verenium in Louisiana. They also are working with organisms from termite guts and jungle rot yeasts that eat canvas.

Gives me some pause, though these industrial kinds of GMOs haven't caused any problems (yet) to the natural environment.

I think that on the whole hybridizing is not a bad thing. just as a side note to all of the plant "purists" out there, 100% of the corn grown commercially used in cereal, corn tortillas, etc. are all geneticly modified. so, if some people really are the "purists" that they claim to be i would like to tell them that they have been eating geneticly modified corn probably unsuspecting for the majority of their lives.
just thought that i would let people know.

I didn't read all of the above (yet?) but...

• "apples" are ancient hybrids. european grapes are, too. i believe seedlings of both have "escaped", but don't know if they are considered prolific enough to be weeds.

• I've read that long ago (pre "genetic engineering" era) a "poisonous" potato (poisonous to what degree?) was produced by crossing solanum spp.

• africanized honeybees.

imo, much ornamental hybridizing is just silly.

• those fluffy irises just look stupid. iris have a ~unique geometry and should look like iris.

• if the only plant you can grow is a rose (which one(s)?), then i suppose a blue rose could be nice. else there are other species of plants with ~blue flowers.

• do we need yellow jacaranda, plumbago, myosotis, borage,,,, ?

I don't blame Monsanto...they're doing what everything they can to maintain control of their technology and maximize profits. I blame the law that says they have a right to sue over that.
uh, huh. but who paid for those laws (or the useful "technicalities")?

my own opinion is malleable :-)
in general, i suggest that anything is ok if one knows enough to determine whether to do it. But people often don't do things that way, so ...

No hybdrizing is not wrong. The Big man put us here to help him along as needed .Is the weather changing ,no only in Gores head ,earth changes all the time.

Is this officially the oldest still running post on GardenWeb?

We fear that which we do not understand. Nature has been "hybridizing" to adapt since the beginning of time, and doing so without man's intervention. Our intervention only hastens the process along a bit, and takes it into some pretty interesting places. In the grand scheme of things, the little bit of changing that we do isn't going to impact anything... the planet will keep hybridizing and adapting... long after man has disappeared from its surface.