WickedFlowerKid
- 5
- 3
So, as the title says, I've been reading about these F1FV (F1 Fast Version) that are, supposedly, not autos but finish earlier than their season counterparts. I've found some stuff that may be contradictory, and despite my experience with them being very very limited (I only grew one of those last year, Critical Poison F1FV by 00 Seeds and it was cut in October in Southern Spain, it said it'd be ready for late August but in general a plant being ready in August in this area is an insult to intelligence) I'm not sure about how real this stuff is...
So, according to the explanation given by the seed banks selling them (they have become a thing already in the European market, both Spanish and Dutch), they are the resulting F1 from crossing a non-auto and an auto. Supposedly, photoperiodicity is dominant while autoflowering is recessive. As such, crossing AA x aa (Considering the photoperiodical hasn't got any trace of autoflowering aleles and is homozygous AA), all resulting offspring of that F1 will be Aa, that is, they are all photoperiodical. Up to this point it's all good, but then are they inferring that despite the autoflowering trait is not expressed, it is shortening the flowering time?
That sounds a lot like implying codominance on a trait (photoperiodicity vs autoflowering) that could rarely be codominant. Either plants flower triggered by a change in the amount of hours of light or they do so upon certain point of maturation, finding a middle ground in this point seems unreasonable. What do y'all think? Is this just the last shout in marketing strategies?
So, according to the explanation given by the seed banks selling them (they have become a thing already in the European market, both Spanish and Dutch), they are the resulting F1 from crossing a non-auto and an auto. Supposedly, photoperiodicity is dominant while autoflowering is recessive. As such, crossing AA x aa (Considering the photoperiodical hasn't got any trace of autoflowering aleles and is homozygous AA), all resulting offspring of that F1 will be Aa, that is, they are all photoperiodical. Up to this point it's all good, but then are they inferring that despite the autoflowering trait is not expressed, it is shortening the flowering time?
That sounds a lot like implying codominance on a trait (photoperiodicity vs autoflowering) that could rarely be codominant. Either plants flower triggered by a change in the amount of hours of light or they do so upon certain point of maturation, finding a middle ground in this point seems unreasonable. What do y'all think? Is this just the last shout in marketing strategies?
