There are many other pivotal questions, some of which are just different ways of saying the same thing, that I think bear thinking about. Please understand that much of what I will say is me playing the Devil’s advocate. I do, however, think that they are important questions that need to be considered carefully.
These include:
Is it right to pursue the germination of these difficult-to-germinate seeds?
Is it really that important to get good germination rates when the very reason we get poor germination rates may not be entirely our own fault but be caused, instead, by fundamental genetic flaws?
Is a low germination rate of superior quality seedlings better than a bunch of seedlings delivered by C-section that need nursing along on life-support systems?
Is zero germination a clear sign that it didn’t work, try again?
Does the very fact that they are difficult to germinate allude to incompatibilities and possible evolutionary dead-ends?
Is it right to put so much time and effort into something that should never have seen the light of day?
Has anyone followed up the progress of these hard-to-germinate seedlings to determine their long-term vigour and health AND the value of their contributions to developing superior lines of superior genetic potential?
Is it worth forcing Nature’s hand just to get the genes into the gene pool?
Is it better to re-assess the situation instead and choose/plan a slightly different route?
Would it be better to repeat crosses that had previously proven unfruitful until they do bear fruit?
I’m not talking about performing embryo extractions to shorten the generational gap. This is a valuable strategy in a hybridiser’s arsenal. I’m talking about the ‘Prairie Princess’-type seeds or the ‘Euphrates’-type seeds that no-one has been able to germinate naturally before. I did an extraction just last night of a ‘Euphrates’ hybrid seed because I’m keen to manifest these genes into something I can work with further and in doing so correct any issues that may be present in the ‘test tube baby’ parent. I did so with trepidation, however, thinking don’t do it Simon. Just try it again on something different. It’s not that big a deal. Then I did it anyway because I figured nothing ventured nothing gained and the gambler in me took over.
If it was me faced with Jim’s dilema I might be just as inclined to take heed of the situation and do as he has already done and abandone this line of breeding because it may be a clear sign that this is as far as it was meant to go.
In discussions like this I’m always reminded of a great line in the movie ‘Jurassic Park’ that scientists are so preoccupied with whether they can do something they never stop to think whether they should. There is something of this in this discussion I believe. If we are truly in this to breed better roses then maybe one needs to adopt a more tried-and-true methodology; natural selection and survival of the fittest. My disclaimer here is that these questions do not necessarily represent what I believe; I think I may at least partially believe them, but I think there is much value in discussing the ethical and philosophical nature of such things, especially when faced with new technology or knowledge that can potentially see many substandard plants being used in breeding that should never have made it past the pollen stage. Please don’t see this as criticism… it isn’t. These are questions that one should be asking of lots of things we do such as chromosome doubling etc. Should we be putting so much effort into getting seeds to germinate that never should have or are we shooting ourselves in the foot instead? I hope people can see it for what it is; an opportunity to elucidate that which we value.