Talk:F1 hybrid

message: It would be a good idea to explain the term "heterozygocity".
:Why? It already has an internal link referring to the definition page... I just think it would be stating things twice. --Marcus 07:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I am currently looking to update Wagyu and am about to discuss breeding practices once those genetics left Japan.  This article seems to focus more on botany.  I also notice that F2 generation has been removed.  Should a Genetic hybrid article be created that encompasses F1, F2, F3 ...? Jaydjenkins 04:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, wouldn't it make more sense to just create a Filial Generations article and then add info about Filial Generations?  I'd like to see F1xF1=F2 information.  Jaydjenkins 05:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I realize that I'm talking to myself at the moment, but it also seems that the article makes generalizations about why hybrids are created.  While in most plant instances crossbreeders would like to breed plants that mature all at once, this is not always the case in research.  Maybe a sub-section for farming should be created. Just ideas. Jaydjenkins 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  F1 F2 etc 

message: The second half of the second paragraph of this article currently reads as follows:
"Because of the almost pure homozygosity of the parent lines, F1 hybrids have a very high level of heterozygosity. As a result of this, F1 hybrids display improved growth and yield characteristics."
I'm no expert, but this does not sound quite accurate to me.  I can think of a situation where crossing two purely homozygous parent lines will NOT give us a heterozygous F1 generation:  
P Generation: aa x aa
F1 Generation = aa
In this situation, crossing two homozygous parent lines has given us a homozygous F1 generation.  That parent lines are inbred and homozygous is irrelevant to the fact that the F1 hybrids are heterozygous.  
Rather, the heterozygosity of the F1 generation observed in agronomy/hybrid seed production can be attributed to the relative dissimilarity between the two parent types (the less closely related they are, the less chance that multiple copies of the same “bad” alleles will be inherited).  
The fact that parent lines are usually inbred and homozygous in seed production is simply to ensure that the F1 generation are phenotypically uniform; if both parent lines were heterozygous, the F1 generation would display a wide range of phenotypic variation, not something that farmers expect when handing over their folding-stuff to buy fancy hybrid seeds.
So in summary, heterozygosity (and therefore, improved growth and yield characteristics) of F1 generation is due to the marked differences between the two parent lines, whilst the pure homozygosity of the parent lines ensures a uniform F1 generation.
I think that the whole introduction could be made more concise and simple, but for now, I have made a small number of changes to correct this inaccurate paragraph.  It now reads:
 
In agronomy, the term “F1 hybrid” is usually reserved for agricultural cultivars derived from two different parent cultivars, each of which are inbred for a number of generations to the extent that they are almost homozygous.  The divergence between the parent lines promotes improved growth and yield characteristics through the phenomenon of heterosis, whilst the homozygosity of the parent lines ensures a phenotypically uniform F1 generation. 
Sridge 12:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting paragraph 2 

message: There appears to be a contradiction in the current listing of disadvantages of F1 hybrids, specifically the following statements:
"F1 hybrids lack genetic diversity, due to the inbred parental lines. F1 hybrids are highly heterozygous and can hence harbour large levels of genetic diversity."
Which is correct?  
Peppergrower 08:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in "Disadvantages" 

message: None of the sources that I've looked at use a subscript for F1 hybrid.  What's up?  Dicklyon (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking at both the sources that are cited in the article and the books found by google book search, and didn't encounter a single one with the subscript (though if I had looked further I might have found one). Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Checking more books, I see the subscript is not so uncommon.  Probably need to mention that it's written both ways, and provide sources, especially if you have one that explains what it means as a subscript (or otherwise).  Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

text: When you combine a systemic replacement edit with a bunch of minor edits, it's hard to revert one without the other. Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you anonymous person for making those changes! Perhaps there is hope for Wikipedia to start making sense after all!Nadiatalent (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the subscript?