David Zlesak has reported that Nearly Wild is a triploid. I have a (Nearly Wild OP) seedling. It is my number 293.
http://picasaweb.google.com/HAKuska/HenrySRoses/photo#5076308151687155666
From its pollen measurements, it appears to be a tetraploid.
http://picasaweb.google.com/HAKuska/MicroscopePictures02/photo#5120598371823108194
http://picasaweb.google.com/HAKuska/MicroscopePictures02/photo#5120598380413042802
Based on this information, I will have to make an attempt to cross it with some of my favorite tetraploids next season.
Link: picasaweb.google.com/HAKuska/HenrySRoses/photo#5076308151687155666
Thanks for the information!!
Thinking of buying my own microscoop.
I’ve seen one for 80 Euro. It’s a basic one.
http://www.weberintershop.nl/images/pictures/640x480/75925.jpg
40x, 100x en 400x
Thanks for this Henry. This explains why it’s likely some of my Home Run seedlings are also triploid or appear to be. A few seem to be forming OP hips. There is hope. So far in general they look pretty good.
Any guess as to percentage of 1X opposed to 2X pollen?
Neil, I did not have a lot of pollen to work with as the flower had already opened.
The link below suggests that their would be sufficient 2X pollen to sucessfully pollinate a tetraploid.
http://picasaweb.google.com/HAKuska/MicroscopePictures02/photo#5124311972345921810
Link: picasaweb.google.com/HAKuska/MicroscopePictures02/photo#5124311972345921810
This is fascinating Henry. It makes me wish I had the patience to put something like this together. I think it will come in really handy, especially in estimating what to expect from the offspring of wide crosses.
I decided to see what a 2 megapixel webcam would do. Although 2 megapixel webcams are still very rare and expensive, the original Hewlett-Packard 2 Megapixel Webcam (with manual focus) has been replaced with one with automatic focus. Because of this model change, I was able to find the manual focus model for only $39.99, new.
Having a manual focus is a plus for microscope use as (in my experience) it has meant that the lens simply screws out.
The links below give comparison pictures of my Logitech Pro 4000 (a 640 X 480 CCD sensor) and the 2 Megapixel HP (a 1600 X 1200 CMOS sensor).
HP 2-Megapixel webcam, calibration slide, 500X setting,1600 X 1200 pixels, 0.0640 microns per pixel Http://picasaweb.google.com/HAKuska/MicroscopePictures02/photo#5124710545310990626
HP 2-Megapixel webcam, calibration slide, 100X setting,1600 X 1200 pixels, 0.285 microns per pixel
Http://picasaweb.google.com/HAKuska/MicroscopePictures02/photo#5124710553900925234
Logitech Pro 4000 webcam, calibration slide, 500X setting,640 X 480 pixels, 0.108 microns per pixel
http://picasaweb.google.com/HAKuska/MicroscopePictures02/photo#5124719504612770146
Logitech Pro 4000 webcam, calibration slide, 100X setting,640 X 480 pixels, 0.481 microns per pixel
Http://picasaweb.google.com/HAKuska/MicroscopePictures02/photo#5124719496022835538
Is 300x enough to view cells and chromosomes?
Hi Timothy, Yes. I like 400x better, but 300x should do. At 100x (10x eyepiece, 10x objective multiplied together for 100x) it is nice to find groups of cells and sometimes possible areas where one can find cells in metaphase. It is difficult for me to detect visible chromosomes at 100x unless they are very very beautiful spread cells. Then I bump up the magnification and scan from there with the 40x objective. Pollen is much easier to see and 300x should be less of a challenge than looking for chromosomes.
Sincerely,
David
Thanks david! It’s a big help. Now i’m sure I buy someting that I can use for my goal.
I got my scope yesterday! The eye ocular has a anoying sort of pencil looking thing in my view. It’s from the side to the middle. I hope i can remove it.
Timothy, if you use a web cam, you remove the ocular so it does not make any difference (mine had one also).
I removed the ocular and the pinn is not in the ocular. It’s in the tube. I’ll mail the fabricator and ask how I can do it without damaging to much.
I tried to make some microscope-pictures with my new eos 400D but can get it sharp. This is the best one from the serie. It’s mould from seeds I cleaned yesterday.
![]()
;
I’m going to look for a webcam like henry.
Timo,
Part of your problem is that your light source may produce parallel light at the center, but out at the edges, you’re getting a distortion (the blue edge at upper center.)
If you had a monocular, I’d suggest moving the lens UNDER the stage of the microscope up closer and to do it while focusing on a single flat line (like a hair that could be flattened between slide and coverslip.) (It probably would need to be racked up.) Also, you might have the substage aperture too wide. There’s an optimum width for each ocular.
I used to be good at getting images sharp for 40x and 100x oculars.
Feel free to ask questions. You may be trying to photograph something that’s too thick for that set of lenses.