nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio
List archive
- From: Jwlehman@aol.com
- To: nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious.
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:13:05 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 8/16/2011 10:41:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
qazingulaza@gmail.com writes:
> I'm by no means a pawpaw expert, but my understanding is that
> they are dioescious, meaning the male &female flowers are on separate
> trees.
Hello ~mIEKAL,
Pawpaws are not dioecious Each flower has male and female parts. However in
each flower the anthers release pollen after the receptive period of the
stigma is completed. Also generally the egg and pollen on the same tree are
not compatible. Two genetically different trees are needed for successful
pollination.
Jerry
>From qazingulaza@gmail.com Tue Aug 16 23:22:01 2011
Return-Path: <qazingulaza@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 20217)
id 0A20FE8C38; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:22:01 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on
mailman1.ibiblio.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VERIFIED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.2.5
Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com (mail-iy0-f169.google.com
[209.85.210.169])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B32E8C2F
for <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:22:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by iym1 with SMTP id 1so1017881iym.0
for <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.251.214 with SMTP id mt22mr1102074ibb.9.1313551319907;
Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.201.81 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <23368.328e93d1.3b7c8bc1@aol.com>
References: <23368.328e93d1.3b7c8bc1@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:21:59 -0500
Message-ID:
<CAKVWZJfnu4QOUWjW-U8a1uj=QQUjDWa9e9YbP3gccUwCK9yRGA@mail.gmail.com>
From: mIEKAL aND <qazingulaza@gmail.com>
To: North American Fruit Explorers <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious.
X-BeenThere: nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: North American Fruit Explorers <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Id: North American Fruit Explorers <nafex.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex>,
<mailto:nafex-request@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/nafex>
List-Post: <mailto:nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex>,
<mailto:nafex-request@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 03:22:01 -0000
This is what I get for trusting what I read on the internet, countless
sites list pawpaw as dioecious. C'est la vie.
All of my pawpaws are from the same seedling stock that I got from
John Gordon called PA Golden. So you are suggesting that since I get
fruit that my seedlings are not all from the same parent?
~mIEKAL
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:13 PM, <Jwlehman@aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 8/16/2011 10:41:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> qazingulaza@gmail.com writes:
>
>> I'm by no means a pawpaw expert, but my understanding is that
>> they are dioescious, meaning the male &female flowers are on separate
>> trees.
>
> Hello ~mIEKAL,
>
> Pawpaws are not dioecious Each flower has male and female parts. However in
> each flower the anthers release pollen after the receptive period of the
> stigma is completed. Also generally the egg and pollen on the same tree are
> not compatible. Two genetically different trees are needed for successful
> pollination.
>
> Jerry
> __________________
> nafex mailing list
> nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration or find out more
> about the list here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
> NAFEX web site: http://www.nafex.org/
>
-
[NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious.,
Jwlehman, 08/16/2011
-
Message not available
-
Re: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious/ yes they are and here's why,
Michele Stanton, 08/17/2011
- Re: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious/ yes they are and here's why, Ron Powell, PhD, 08/17/2011
-
Re: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious/ yes they are and here's why,
Michele Stanton, 08/17/2011
-
Message not available
- Re: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious., Hector Black, 08/17/2011
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious., Jwlehman, 08/16/2011
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.