I have not yet seen this review:
Title: Understanding genetic relationships of wild and cultivated roses and the use of species in breeding.
Authors: De Cock, Katrien; Scariot, Valentina; Leus, Leen; De Riek, Jan; Van Huylenbroeck, Johan.
Authors affiliation: Plant Unit - Applied Genetics and Breeding, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Melle, Belg.
Published in: CAB Reviews (2007), (2), No page numbers given. Publisher: CABI Publishing.
Abstract: “The existence of numerous wild species, the variability within species and the wide geog. distribution in combination with the weak barriers to interspecific and intersectional hybridization, make genetic relationships within the genus Rosa difficult to unravel. The use of mol. techniques has revealed some new insights in taxonomy and phylogenetic relationships. The understanding of these relationships among species and cultivars is a prerequisite for the effective utilization of the available genetic variability to tackle the new demands from growers and consumers. Many wild species have interesting traits. The rose breeders’ challenge is to introgress the desirable beneficial genes from wild species to tetraploid cultivars in order to accelerate the prodn. of superior rose germplasm.”
Hello Henry,
It is just published. Here are all the details, it should be online.
Understanding genetic relationships of wild and cultivated roses and the use of species in breeding
K.De Cock,V.Scariot,L.Leus,J.De Riek,J.Van Huylenbroeck
[History] Received: 26 February 2007; Accepted: 9 July 2007
CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 2007, 2, No. 052, 10 pp.
August 2007
Leen.
Henry,
Will you join me in a ‘witch hunt’ to eradicate abstracts that don’t tell diddly squat about the content of the article.
Abstracts are supposed to summarize the important findings.
The sentence above “Many wild species have interesting traits” is about the most worthless sentence I’ve read this year (exaggeration, I’ve read a lot of abstracts.)
Now with the “buy this paper” drive behind publishing, we’re seeing a lot of abstracts that aren’t, that tell nothing about the real findings reported in the article. And I fear this is going to continue.
Has the National Academy of Sciences ever looked at this?
Ann
Ann, in my experience, an abstract of a review is normally quite different than the abstract of a scientific research paper. i.e. what you are expecting “Abstracts are supposed to summarize the important findings.”, would definitely apply to papers describing new research. I do not have a problem with the “Many wild species have interesting traits” statement appearing in the abstract of a review, but I would if it appeared in the abstract of an original scienific research paper.
Ann,
Authors do not have an interest in the sales of their articles. The only thing authors want is that their articles are read by other scientists, and that they are cited by them. But of course, the journal publishers need to be paid for their work.
The most easy way for (recent) publications is to contact the authors and simply ask for an offprint.
leen.
I received a copy of the review today. What will probably be of particular interest to the amateur hybridizer is Table 1 “Inheritance of characteristics in roses”. The table consists of 3 columns. The first column lists 20 traits such as “double flowers”, “resistance to blackspot”, and “winter hardiness”. The second column lists 5 types of inheritance classes: “single recessive”, single dominant", quantitative", “single codominant”, and “a major and a minor QTL”. The third column gives the scientific reference(s) for where the information was published.
I also particularly like that the authors gave the complete title for each of the 111 research papers that they reference. An example is: “104. Zlesak DC, Thill Ca, Anderson NO. Trifluralin-mediated polyploidization of Rosa chinensis minima (sims) Voss seedlings. Euphytica 2005; 141:1195-200.”
Got it also. Very very interesting. Thank you again Henry.
p4: “the highest priority in rose breeding research is the development of desease resistant roses”
This sounds like it might be a great paper worth the purchase price. Does anyone know what the price is and where to obtain it? Can it be purchased as a single article versus subscribing to the journal? Thanks.
This sounds like it might be a great paper worth the purchase price. Does anyone know what the price is and where to obtain it? Can it be purchased as a single article versus subscribing to the journal? Thanks.
Hi Rob
I just asked for it and in a few hours got this reply from:
johan.vanhuylenbroeck@ilvo.vlaanderen.be
"Dear sir,
please find herewith the requested publication in CAB reviews.
Best regards
Johan Van Huylenbroeck
ILVO
Unit Plant"
With the review in pdf format.
I hope no one thought that I implied that the authors receive money from paper sales. Authors of scientific publications have never gotten paid for publishing and probably never will.
Thank you Henry for the excellent description of some of the content. Well referenced articles are always welcome.
I tried at our Ag. library to get access to this paper. I couldn’t. I’ll make another try and then, if unsuccssful, I’ll try to contact the senior author.
Thank you, Pierre, for the email address.