I posted this in another forum, but since the person who dug up this old thread to talk about "gene 6" in multiple forums... In case anyone wants some information about "gene 6"...better/correctly known as "P6"...as it pertains to current discussion based on a study by the EFSA... This is a very wide range of proteins found in virus encoding from HIV to mosaic virus...these proteins are also found in the smoke of burning meat and tobacco. It's a very wide range. In this case, one of the biggest dangers would be a chance encoding to re-invigorate the "dead" version of cauliflower mosaic virus (or P6 residues) that's very commonly used as a carrier string for DNA/RNA insertion that it's inserted into. This could lead to some allergy problems, too, even if it doesn't fully express the mosaic virus but still overlaps enough to express P6 proteins. P6 is a known allergen, though it's not one that everyone is sensitive to. The expression of this gene is highly unlikely, though...and would be regulated to a single (or very small groups) of plants doing this replication rather than entire seed source or a field suddenly replicating mosaic virus or P6 residues. If it is the case that encoding suddenly made it large-scale available it would show up heavily in the research stage and it wouldn't make it out into the consumer market since it's showing inferior/bad genetic expression. One of the biggest parts of GMO research is tossing out 99%+ of everything you're actually trying to create because positive effects of expression aren't stable enough to sell it as seed...or it's showing "bad" expressions. There's a lot of otherwise harmful viruses (to plants or humans) used to insert GMO traits for start/end points into a genetic change that are made inert (and distinctly different) from their original genetic package, but still contain large parts of what makes up the virus, itself. Viruses can easily carry genetic information and they're ideal vehicles for transferring it. The genetic carriers of the virus are merely vehicles. Once you change the "genetic package" inside a virus it's not even what you started with. The "guts" are changed dramatically. If you put a Dodge Neon engine in a Porsche very few people would still consider it a Porsche. That's the level of dramatic change in sequencing going on inside of these packages. You can take certain virus types, depending on what you're trying to achieve, and precisely insert genetic information with start/termination points into existing DNA/RNA...totally turning it's genetic information into something totally different in both makeup and application. Btw, to those with P6 protein sensitivities...this would be a big deal. I'm not trying to knock the research at all. I'm just saying it's overlapping expression would most likely be contained to a very few plants in a field, not widespread. While genetic start/termination points are very good with insertion and replication once stable, nothing is perfect when you're exchanging genes...we see it even natural breeding. The major problem with this particular chain of insertion is the overlapping of the 2 sequences given as example in the paper and what could happen as a consequence of them being genetically linked so closely together...even if there's a very small chance of it happening as defined. It's also worth mentioning we're talking a single virus carrier, not the 100s of types (or the 20-ish most commonly used) carriers. It would also be greatly influenced by the new information inserted, what was cut out, and where the start/termination points overlap (if there is any replication overlap). There's more than 1 way to insert genetic information into virus and the chances of overlap encoding or reversion is different depending on the type of method used.

Thank you everyone for your input. It has been very helpful. My reason for asking about such things is that I recently inherited a group of plants and a list thereof and I am trying to update the list to be more modern. The list is dated 1984 and looking around online I can see that it is somewhat outdated. So I have been trying to figure out what is more professional and what is more modern when it comes to listing plants. (It's easier when you buy a plant with a modern label.) For example, a section on the original list might read Aizoaceae - Carruanthus caninus - Lithops -- aucampiae v. fluminalis -- bromfieldii v. glaudinae -- dinteri v. frederici C.180 -- dinteri v. multipunctata -- dorotheae (just to pick a random group on the front page). Looking around online, I see so much stuff about author's names, synonyms, and so on and I find that a lot of the information conflicts (or seems to) so that I can seldom tell for sure if I have made the list any better by "updating" it or if I've only made it worse. Using my above example, I have rewritten the list this way: Aizoaceae - Carruanthus ringens (L.) Boom (C. caninus (Lam.) Schwantes) - Lithops -- L. aucampiae var. fluminalis Cole -- L. bromfieldii var. glaudinae Cole -- L. dinteri var. frederici Cole C.180 -- L. dinteri var. multipunctata de Boer -- L. dorotheae Nel Here I have attempted to update the epithet of each (where necessary) and to include the author's names. It confuses at times, however. For example Cole seems to mean more than one person with that same last name depending what web site you look at. Is the author name always necessary and, if so, where exactly in the whole name is it supposed to go? Sometimes I see a name come before "var." and other times only at the end of the whole name. Other times still it comes in both places so that names appear in two different spots. By the way, the sites I have been using the most are http://www.theplantlist.org and http://www.tropicos.org. I've also made some use of Wikipedia but I do not trust it as much. If anyone has any criticism of my alterations to the list or any additional advice, I welcome any input that will help me be more professional in my list. Thank you again. It is maddening trying to figure all of this out on my own. P. S. If there are any mistakes in my revised, list they are not intentional. I am copying and pasting out of my Latex PDF file and my computer doesnâÂÂt always cooperate. This post was edited by Reuel on Mon, Dec 8, 14 at 16:50

In previous years I have coddled my tomato babies and used different contraptions to protect them from inclement weather. I usually have great success. This year, I can barely spare 5min away from my baby girl to sneak into the garden to see how the maters are doing. They aren't doing so great. So, from my original list, I have had to do a few replacements with whatever I could find from the "big box" stores or local plant sales. 1.Great White (need a beefsteak) UPDATE - DEAD 2.Purple Calabash (hoping for taste since I liked purple prince) UPDATE - 1 barely alive (Jbox) 3.Green Sausage (novelty) UPDATE - DEAD 4.Purple Prince (LOVE the taste) UPDATE - DEAD 5.Polish Linguisa (need a paste!) UPDATE - Pretty sure it will be dead when I get home today. 6.Black Cherry (hoping for taste and early) UPDATE - Really DEAD 7.Sungold (last year sucked, give it another chance) UPDATE - One of 4 tomatoes I had in 2 J-Boxes(Josho) that is alive 8.Stupice (early) UPDATE - Not sure actually. Suckers are forming where the original branches were sunburned and windwracked (Jbox) 9.SilveryFirTree (for the foliage) UPDATE - I give it 45% survival chance at this stage 10.Oxheart (need a regular red!) UPDATE - ALIVE! One of 4 in jbox. Managed to find - Red Zebra - Amish Paste Box Stores - Lemon Boy - Sweet Million Will probably get something like beefsteak etc. .Will cross my fingers and pray the rest survives!

Hi Sharon, Let me try to clarify... These points are intended for general viewing; they are not just responses to your postings. Viola papilionacea is a defunct name, though it still crops up fairly often, probably due to folks referring to older reference material, or to other folks who did so... Use V. sororia instead. Priceana is a form of V. sororia, and preferably should be used as such - ie. Viola sororia f. priceana rather than Viola sororia priceana, and certainly not Viola sororia 'Priceana'. (There are italics issues here, but this forum does not allow me to use italics.) Albiflora is also a form of V. sororia. Where you have seen reference to V. papilionacea f. albiflora, it should be V. sororia f. albiflora. I do not know what the official Latin diagnosis of f. albiflora entails, but I would guess it describes the plant as having pure white flowers. My plant was certainly like that. In practice, the name probably gets applied to many individuals with largely-white flowers. The blue centre of V. sororia f. priceana is variable in size, from plant to plant. Hence the boundary between f. priceana and f. albiflora is partly a matter of opinion. That is, how much white is needed before you call it f. albiflora rather than f. priceana? Opinions vary. Vv. sororia and striata are very different. Don't go just on pictures of the flowers. Perhaps the most obvious, and taxonomically significant, difference is that V. sororia has no aerial stems (just a rhizome), whereas V. striata has stems. Also, V. striata never has any blue in its flowers, and is a creamy colour, whereas the white in V. sororia flowers, of whatever form, is never than creamy. The stipules are very different, too. Sharon: You say you have "white violets with purple veining". There are several species which fit that description. If you can post some images here (flower front and side, stem/base of plant, leaves), we may be able to pin them down. Meanwhile http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/topics.cgi?earl=advquery/adv_query.html will allow you to list which species of Viola are recorded from New Hampshire. Supposedly, you can constrain the list to those with white flowers, but that is not working properly. You should, however, be able to constrain it to your county (which I don't know). The white ones for New Hampshire as a whole include: Vv. - blanda - lanceolata - macloskeyi (may be a mistake, I think - they may mean V. pallens) - primulifolia - renifolia - striata Cheers, Mike Here is a link that might be useful: Earlier discussion of Vv. sororia/papilionacea on this forum