I'm sorry for the delay in answering your request to post my actual Amazon review. Here is the word for word review that Amazon deleted. The greenhouse that I ordered (a 7'x7' with a plastic slip over cover - which when I got it, actually turned out to be less than 6.5 feet square) is not made any longer, so I posted on Amazon on other models. I don't think Amazon has found the reviews yet, but when they do, I'm sure they will be deleted too: I purchased an EarthCare greenhouse through Amazon in January 2012. It lasted to September 2012. I was excited when I got the greenhouse. It was just the right size for my small backyard. The first thing we noticed is that the plastic cover is too small for the frame. We thought it might stretch out. It didn't. Then, after putting it up and securing it with the small pegs that are provided, it blew over within the first 48 hours (not even that big of a wind). One of the legs broke in half and another bent in half. Luckily, my husband is handy with fixing stuff, so he fixed the legs better than new. We put it back up with massive stakes at each corner. All seemed well until I went into the greenhouse in September, and everything in there was covered with small things that looked like fish scales. I couldn't figure out what they were for a while, and then it dawned on me to look up at the roof. Almost every small plastic "window" between the green mesh was empty. I now have a screen house with very large mesh. The plastic cover is shot. This is an unacceptably short life span for this greenhouse. I contacted Earthcare and asked for a replacement because their website has a 100% money back guarantee. This is their exact reply (lack of capital letters and all)-------- “our supplier on these only offers a 30 day warranty against any defects in the merchandise. We also do not carry this model any more. We had a sticker on the box that says to remove the cover during the summer months as they get very hot and that affects the cover. what I would recommend would be to buy some greenhouse film and put under the existing cover for the heat and just use the other cover to hold the greenhouse film in place and beable to use the zip up door.” thanks butch ------ First, there was NO sticker on the box, and my (actual cut and paste) response below explains why heat was not a factor in the deterioration of the plastic: I live right on the coast and I use(d) the greenhouse all summer because it's so COLD. Heat is NOT a factor in the deterioration of this plastic. Thanks for honoring your warantee. I will remember this and recommend to my many gardening friends NOT to buy ANYTHING from earth care greenhouses. And also, your lack of respect for your customers is obvious when you don't even care enough to use capital letters. Pretty disgraceful. ----- There was no response from Earthcare after that, so I contacted the Better Business Bureau. They attempted to have EarthCare honor it's guarantee, but EarthCare refused. So the case has been dropped. If you purchase an EarthCare product and it is defective or of poor quality, EarthCare WILL NOT honor their guarantee."

I think this is a hybrid seed which means you will not get the same thing by saving it.

Brian, There are several books on tissue culture that give more details on zygotic embryo culture than the In Vitro Plant Breeding book that I referenced. I mentioned it first because it is introductory, and I happen to have a copy of it. I think "zygotic embryo culture" is the technical term for the subject of your inquiry. Many of the books in this subject area are relatively expensive, so you will benefit from learning to use Amazon's Search Inside! feature. You can find more detail in the book, Introduction to Plant Tissue Culture by M. K. Razdan, in Chapter 11 (beginning on page 128) titled "Zygotic Embryo Culture". Apparently you can't link directly to specific pages within a book. At least, I don't know how to do it. But this link, Search Inside! Introduction to Plant Tissue Culture should get you inside where you can enter the search string "129" in the Search box and press the red Go button to get a list of hits for that string. At the top of the list is hit 1. "on page 129" and clicking on that will link you to page 129, which is the second page in Chapter 11. Just use the left arrow in the margin of page 129 to go to the beginning of Chapter 11 on what would be page 128 if it had a page number, which it doesn't. At $49.50, that book is fairly affordable, but it is temporarily out of stock at Amazon. Another good book, Plant Tissue Culture: Theory and Practice by Bhojwani and Razdan costs $370, so there is motivation to use Amazon's Read Inside on it. Once you get into the Read Inside your target is Chapter 11, titled Zygotic Embryo Culture, beginning on page 297. Entering "297" in the Search box is the quickest way to find a link to that page, because it does have a page number. There are a bunch of good books on tissue culture, and tissue culture techniques can be used to culture embryos that otherwise wouldn't develop into viable seeds. That makes it possible to grow interspecific and even intergeneric hybrids that wouldn't grow without using zygotic embryo culture techniques. You might be interested in the Kitchen Culture Kits, Inc. website. Dr. Carol M. Stiff is the proprietor, and she might be able to put together a kit specifically adapted to your zygotic embryo culture needs. MM

But getting back to basics, we have another case that appears similar. According to Darlington (Evolution of Genetic Systems, 1958) I am sure that we could take each example, of the many that were published many years ago, and follow the trail of more recently published research that provided useful information for determining if the original conclusions were reasonable. We would probably learn a great deal about many interesting subjects. But it would be time-consuming and from my viewpoint I am handicapped by having poor access to libraries with older research journals. I expect that time would be more efficiently used by examining the original research papers and determining whether accepted scientific practices were used and thus their conclusions warranted. I am going to continue with Frankel's research because although I do not think he was a fraud or a fool I do consider that his conclusions were unwarranted. It is clear from his published comments that he knew exactly where his experimental design failed to eliminate alternative explanations. His 1956 paper was considered by van Marrewijk as having shown an effect of the grafting so I will use it as the basis for my comments. From a quick examination of recent research published by the Chinese and Japanese groups on graft-induced genetic changes I expect that, in general, similar comments could be made in relation to many of the papers published on similar subjects. Frankel's paper gives no indication that he randomized the growing of any of his plant material and thus any systematic environmental differences present were not eliminated from affecting his observations. It is normal practice to have a randomized design to account for such potential effects. Nor did he provide any description of how he classified plants as sterile versus fertile. If there was any subjectivity involved in that classification then 'blind' methods would be needed to eliminate any researcher biases (that is the person classifying the plants would not know which plant was from the experimental group and which was from the control group). And most seriously he had no control for the effect of grafting. The description in the paper indicated that the effect of grafting was severe both on the scions and on the seeds produced from them. He needed a group that was fertile scion grafted to fertile stock to be able to compare and eliminate the effects of maternal environment on the offspring. These are known in plant species and can be short-term or long-term. If he had a control group he would then have had to analyze the differences in fertility between the two groups to show that the experimental treatment had a significant effect. His research material was open-pollinated, genetically variable and thus permitted alternative explanations involving selection, etc. There was no description of how he chose the plants to provide the scions, was one plant used for all scions? were a number of plants chosen at random used? and so on. He clearly understood that his design allowed alternative explanations as he states: "For several reasons these data do not permit extensive speculation about the nature of this cytoplasmic sterility." and he went on to mention the high heterozygosity, the lack of large numbers of offspring, the possibility of distorted segregation ratios due to high seedling mortality. In my opinion his conclusions are unwarranted and although he thought, "There is a remote possibility, for instance, that nutritional deficiency, which might have been induced by grafting, might cause a disturbance in cytoplasmic enzyme activity in such a way as to lead to an increase or decrease of sterility-determining entities of the cytoplasm." I consider that is the most likely explanation (omitting the specification of enzyme activity). With hindsight, from what is known now about cytoplasmic male sterility and mitochondria, the most likely explanation is that his fertile stock had individuals with substoichiometric mitochondrial variants present and that the stress induced by grafting caused a change in proportions. That type of explanation would also help explain why the results of replicating the experiment in Petunia could fail - that is, they would fail if the fertile stock chosen did not harbour the mitochondrial variant and they would fail if the grafting was easily successful and did not provide high levels of 'stress'. If 'Rosy Morn' has spontaneously produced cytoplasmic male sterile individuals then that would be evidence that it contains individuals with substoichiometric (one variant DNA copy per every, eg 100-200 cells) quantities of the variant mitochondria. It is intersting to note that a report (Bentolila, et al)quoted "In Petunia, a single dominant nuclear gene termed Rf confers fertility to lines carrying the only known CMS cytoplasm in this genus (16)." Reference 16 is a paper by Izhar, et al and Bentolila, et al thank Izhar for providing Petunia stocks; Izhar worked with Frankel. Apparently none of the cytoplasmic male sterile lines from grafted individuals are available from Frankel's work or the other research groups. It doesn't really matter at this point whether transposons, mitochondria, viruses, plasmagenes or some as-yet-unidentified phenomena are involved. Although for Touchstone, as the graft has already been made and a variant found this does apply, in general I cannot agree that it does not matter. For example, if one is interested in genetic variation caused by a transposon then it would be easier and more efficient to begin with a stock that has an active transposon than to graft a stabilized strain in the hopes of reactivating the transposon and producing interesting genetic variants. The question returns to "does grafting cause any changes that are different from those that can be caused by alternative methods?" and "can those alternative methods be more practical/effective/efficient than grafting?" If the cytoplasmic male sterility history (Frankel) is a general example I would conclude that the answer to those two questions, in order, is no and yes.