This week I read in Time Magazine that human genetics, usually thought to mutate at a very slow and constant rate, can be changed in the short term, and very rapidly, by prenatal conditions affecting the child.  According to this article these very rapid changes can persist for several generations. 

This morning I read, in one of Ingevald's posts, this quote attributed to Ray Givens:
"I e-mailed Mike McConkey of Edible Landscaping and asked him about it. He explained that his Hardy Chicago came from Fred Born, but that he had used tissue culture to multiply his stock. The plants produced by this procedure may have juvenile leaves for several generations. There is only one strain of Chicago Hardy."

Now I wonder;  Most of us are growing figs from cuttings obtained from other fig nuts.  Is it just possible that the growing conditions and treatment the cuttings get can possibly affect the short term genetics of these trees?  Does a cutting from a horribly stressed tree produce the same tree that the cuttings from a better year produces? 

We are conditioned to think that all cuttings from one tree will give the same results in all cases and in every year.  Is this necessarily true?  Will the cuttings from the tenth generation of my tree produce the same figs that mine does?  If these trees do encounter short-term genetic changes, will ALL their descendants revert?  Is this how "sports" occur?

Time for you academic types to weigh in.
Ox

I observed that when Siam Ruby bananas, which have a very distinctive coloration and pattern, were tissue cultured, that many did not resemble the parent plant, and were quite diverse in their looks. There were other bananas which shared a common names, but behaved much differenty, but because they were all green, you couldn't readily see the genetic differences, which were only observed when plants were shorter, or taller, of had different fruit characteristics. It may well be, if HC was tisuse cultured, that there are, in fact, many different HCs, that is many different HC ELs now in existence, which might explain some of the different plants that are supposed to be the same. My guess would be that many will never "revert" back to the original HC but continue to be HC1, HC2, HC#, etc.

The observations by Jon and others are very interesting in relation to how the genetics may be working.     Just over a year ago I posted my thoughts about naming confusion on both forums and received some replies related to the genetics issues.   Here are both in case you want to dig through them.

That was my understading, that tissue culture produced exact replicas, but the banana experience led me to conclude that that may not be the case - or at least not the case ith all things tissue cultured. The differences seen in the bananas were exhibited under identical conditions.

There is a phenomena called "genetic drift". If you have a mother plant and take a cutting, then take a cutting from that clone and keep going there is a point where the genetics are very different from the mother. The genetics keep drifting from the mother with every generation. Kinda like every time you would record a vhs tape. If your friend would copy your tape and his friend would copy his tape and so on. I would imagine that it would be the same for tissue culture as well.

-Little John

Forager;
I suspect that genetic drift will have a more noticeable effect upon the future of the US of A than it will on fig performance. 

I looked up the practice of cell culture of plants after reading the comments here.  There are kits available now to permit the novice to learn how to do this.  Anyone wanting to quickly multiply thousands of plants from one individual would have to know the technique. 
Ox

This is quite interesting, but I think I will stick with rooting cuttings. Seems like too much work for my liking to replicate with culture tissue.

After doing some research I found this info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Taking less than healthy cuttings for genertaions can effect epigenetics. Genetic drift seems to be something different.

I found this tidbit....

Genetics do not change over time, that is hard science. An external mutagen can mutate them, but left alone, they stay the same, therefore clones do not change over time!

also....

The genome does not change...
the epigenome can, however...                

So,  I wonder if bleach, anti-bac soap or chemical fertilizers could be mutagens for changing plants?

the question also comes as to what are they reverting back to?
do trees have mtdna.. and if so the y line is what determines humans general looks and mtdna determines most of how it functions.

so we have to ask what is being shed during the tissue culture process. I suspect it is going back to whatever that dna is that is it pure female/functional type. in humans it would be called their mtdna most likely.
how we function has to do with many environmental factors. mtdna has to d with cellar metabolism. it has to be.. and that sure would be effected in the womb.
don't know how much a tree can determine these things until it hits dirt though.... I suspect more so that it's first few days in the dirt it is to live it's life in determines a lot of changes or death of the plant if it's genetics are just wrong for that soils condition.
in the tissue culture I suspect it is shedding it's y 'Type" frills and revealing it truer main maternal/ or "functional" decent line.
maybe that is why there is so many figs just exactly a-like because they come from the same maternal lines colored by whatever it is that is the Y or male frills and flash produces..

so maybe a tree or cutting may be able to totally revert at any point to it's maternal decent, because it's main object is functional and reproductive issues.. and less about frills like color.. but taste may be part of it's function, because it has to attract wasps

In classic mammalian genetics, one of the first to throw a monkey wrench into the works was Mary Lyons. She noted that in human females (who have two X chromosomes, both with different genetic information--one from their mother and one from their father) one x chromosome is always inactivated-- it's just not always the same one. Essentially the genetic information expressed can differ by cell without considering epigenetics. "lyonization" was one of the first clues that if you culture two supposedly genetically identical cells from the same individual, radically different results may ensue.

This activation of both maternal and paternal information in different cells provides some distinct advantages. The most advantageous cell line (with maternal or paternal information) is selected over time as women age and in older women, one cell line tends to predominate.

I'm not sure what relevance this has for figs except it is interesting to think that all parts of a plant may not be genetically identical.

Scott:
What it means, I think, is that we may not always get identical plants when we take two cuttings from the same tree.  Pehaps we do get identical plants in the great majority of cases, but that possibility of differences is out there. 
Ox

now just to help folks get this I have to ask..

and dieseler your mom and dads female line has very high percentages of light eyes and light skin and they can drink milk with out allergies right? your bald head is to make sure you get every bit of sun/d you can from a likely northern cold environment most likely your genes, you maternal genes originated from.

now my direct line is" hunter gather" and we have no blue eyes and they usually have dark hair.. but if a dad is a blondy/red like an I1a (viking) an his direct mother line is blue eyed cheese eaters sometimes about 50% of the boys ( more of the daughters) of such a father will get light/hazel eyes and fairer skin and blondish hair as a child that usually turns dark as they get older. but never a baldy son in the family ever and rarely can anyone drink milk or to many "modern" or processed foods with out some very harsh reactions. we have a huge need for SUN to get adequate vitamin D or lupus and diabetes are possible effects..
though some individuals may look like a "whitey" in our family .. we can't necessarily live like a modern "whitey". so how an individual functions and how they "look" are two very different things sometimes.

my guess is that somehow your
" fig chimera ",
in animals white is a spot.. it is a spot of a "absense of colors "( over a body color ) genes. these are mostly determined by the males.

boots, this is an interesting concept you have with the bald issue.  My mothers people all her brothers are not completely bald, but almost and they all are very dark haired people and olive skinned and dark eyed.  We have almost no blue eyed or fair haired people in our family. Dad's side was the same. One brother of Pop's was full haired and the other two almost bald, they all had very thick hair to start out.  All dark not white types of northern European, but Mediterranean. My brothers all have very thick, black, wirey hair with no signs of loosing any. I have thick thick hair as well, but thank god I'm a woman and hopefully wont loose it.

Martin, which tree are you talking found in Japan in the woods, maybe I missed something, just curious. 

Boots, interesting observations. I am still wondering how it aplies to my own genetic makeup.
Paternal line pure Scot descended from the Norsemen who raided/settled the Hebrides Islands off the coast of Scotland, okay there would also be a strong admixture of gael or celtic genetics as the norse went "native". General phenotype on the paternal line is fair skinned, blue eyed, small in stature (odd since I thought the Norse were known for size, possible Bergmann's Rule, but it could be the Island Rule in effect since the Hebrides are islands), hair light colored and thin in amount tending to thin as it ages, no major digestive issues other than sensitivity to high fat and acid diets (tendency to reflux).
Maternal line, not as much known tough English in general make up with almost equal French (southern mediterranean?) contribution The most recent addition though being very strong hunter/gatherer, Cherokee native american. Phenotype; tall and slender, dark complexioned, dark hair and eyes, hair greying but never white, full and thick heads of hair in all known individuals straight in texture. Very little to no facial hair or body hair. Strong facial features to include high cheekbones and strong noses. No known food issues. Unique phenomena is that at least one in every recent generation shows very strong native american influence and it is in almost a direct line. Some sort of gentic dominance thing?
I am of that type, can't grow a beard for squat. Dark complexioned to the point of often being asked if I am multiracial. My mother is as well as was her father. My brothers on the other hand tend more toward the paternal type though they do have the height of mother's line. My youngest sibling has the fair skin issues of melanomas where I am constantly exposed to the sun with zero issues.
Genetics are always an interesting study.

Boots, interesting observations. I am still wondering how it aplies to my own genetic makeup.
Paternal line pure Scot descended from the Norsemen who raided/settled the Hebrides Islands off the coast of Scotland, okay there would also be a strong admixture of gael or celtic genetics as the norse went "native". General phenotype on the paternal line is fair skinned, blue eyed, small in stature (odd since I thought the Norse were known for size, possible Bergmann's Rule, but it could be the Island Rule in effect since the Hebrides are islands), hair light colored and thin in amount tending to thin as it ages, no major digestive issues other than sensitivity to high fat and acid diets (tendency to reflux).
Maternal line, not as much known tough English in general make up with almost equal French (southern mediterranean?) contribution The most recent addition though being very strong hunter/gatherer, Cherokee native american. Phenotype; tall and slender, dark complexioned, dark hair and eyes, hair greying but never white, full and thick heads of hair in all known individuals straight in texture. Very little to no facial hair or body hair. Strong facial features to include high cheekbones and strong noses. No known food issues. Unique phenomena is that at least one in every recent generation shows very strong native american influence and it is in almost a direct line. Some sort of gentic dominance thing?
I am of that type, can't grow a beard for squat. Dark complexioned to the point of often being asked if I am multiracial. My mother is as well as was her father. My brothers on the other hand tend more toward the paternal type though they do have the height of mother's line. My youngest sibling has the fair skin issues of melanomas where I am constantly exposed to the sun with zero issues.
Genetics are always an interesting study.

well it is about our direct male and female lines.
dresslers Y line must be a dark med type line some of these are darker northern euro too like Picts .. and red celts and/white headed scandinavians is the light/spot versions of black headed genes , sceince don't know that yet but in animal husbandry we sure do..and yellow headed is light version of brown. all is triggered by environment . but brown hair is usually dominant over black hair. when I say black mean true black... it does not refect any yellow light..
color is mostly determined by the direct true male line and how that combines with the mothers true and "functional" genes with just a hint laced of her dads coloring..
these are things we learned in animals taught to 4 H kids but no geneticists seem to know.. I taught 4 H for years..
you can't see some of these things in a microscope I guess.
((italian girl) and I can't explain why just some of the men in your dads family got bald.. it must have been for some other reason than genetics. or
ask if your grandma spent more time outdoors when pregnant with the not bald child? and or if she had worked indoor when pregnant with the bald kids? maybe she changed in her genetics during one of those pregnancies, usually that only happens if there is a lot of stress factors...)
so it is Dresslers direct female line which is baldy/cheese eaters.

you just described my line and yes it was cherokee.. woman about 6'4 and that is just the girls..
" it is in almost a direct line" in clan speak you are probably like a brother to me..
and you can drink milk? now that is weird. your dads Y line must be very fair and you just pulled hard to your direct female line genes. or that line is in the process of getting cheesier...
yes it has caused problems when our female lines " true color" and "type" it's usually sons show up and they are huge looking indians.. and it is bad when the dad is blond and fair.. but the boys kids have a 50 /50 chance of showing mom true side and daughters only have about 1/3 or less chances of showing it because another true X and the color of dad is in play more with daughters ..
so you were the huge dark indian kid in a house of white folks hum ? .. that sure has caused issues in our larger family at times.. ,lol. at least now we can explain it to them in our line and those boy children.. that white guy is still your daddy.. mom's NDN genes showed up..


I'm a runt in my family for a few reasons..
one being my other X never reaches 5 ft.. I'm 5'8 that is half way between 6'4 and 5'. see how that worked but I could have been any height between 6'4 and 5' ..

does anyone know if female plants have two x's? they would have to don't they ?