Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:37:22.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VII.—Cytological and Genetical Studies in the Genus Solanum. II. Wild and Native Cultivated “Diploid” Potatoes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

H. C. Choudhuri
H. C. Choudhuri
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, The University, Edinburgh.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Artificial interspecific hybrids in “diploid” species of potatoes have been recorded by Bukasov (1938), Emme (1936), Reddick (1939), and others. These authors paid little, if any, attention to the number and behaviour of the chromosomes in their plants, but rather concentrated on interspecific compatibilities, inheritance of flower colour, and resistance to disease or the genetical sequellæ to exposure to low temperature, all with regard to the possible utilisation of the plants in commerce.

The present cytological investigations are primarily concerned with the cytology of two interspecific “diploid” potato hybrids with a view to determining the homology of the chromosomes of the parents and its bearing on sterility.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , 1944 , pp. 199 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1944

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References to Literature

Anderson, E., and Winton, D. de, 1931. “The Genetic Analysis of an Unusual Relationship Between Self-sterility and Self-fertility in Nicotiana,” Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard., XVII, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, P., 1930. “Cytological Studies of Five Interspecific Hybrids of Crepis leontodontoides,” Univ. Calif. Pub. Agr. Sci., VI, 135–167.Google Scholar
Beadle, G. W., 1930. “Genetical and Cytological Studies of Mendelian Asynapsis in Zea Mays,” Mem. Cornell Univ. Agric. Sta., No. 129.Google Scholar
Bukasov, S. M., 1938. “Interspecific Hybridization in the Potato,” Bull. Acad. Sci. U.R.S.S., 711–732.Google Scholar
Carson, G. P., and Howard, H. W., 1942. “Self-incompatibility in Certain Diploid Potato Species,” Nature, London, CL, 290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choudhuri, H. C., 1942. “Chromosome Studies in some British Species of Limonium,” Ann. Bot., N.S., VI, 183–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choudhuri, H. C., 1943. “Cytological Studies in the Genus Solanum. I. Wild and Native Cultivated ‘Diploid’ Potatoes,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., LXI, 113–135.Google Scholar
Darlington, C. D., 1937. “Recent Advances in Cytology,” 2nd ed., London.Google Scholar
East, E. M., and Mangelsdorf, A. J., 1925. “A new Interpretation of the Behaviour of Self-sterile Plants,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., XI, 166–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
East, E. M., and Mangelsdorf, A. J., 1926. “The Genetics and Physiology of Self-sterility in Nicotiana,” Mem. Hort. Soc. N.Y., III, 321–323.Google Scholar
Emme, E. K., 1936. “The Genetics of Potato. I. The Inheritance of Corolla Colour in 24-chromosome Species of Potato” (Title trans.), Biologičeskii Žurnal, V, 977–1000.Google Scholar
Karpechenko, G. D., 1928. “Polyploid Hybrids of Raphanus sativus x Brassica oleracea L.,” Zeits. Ind. Abst.-u. Vererb., XLVIII, 1–85.Google Scholar
Moffett, A. A., 1936. “The Origin and Behaviour of Chiasmata. XIII. Diploid and Triploid Culex pipiens,” Cytotogia, VII, 184–197.Google Scholar
Müntzing, A., 1933 a. “Apomictic and Sexual Seed Formation in Poa,” Hereditas, XVII, 131–154.Google Scholar
Müntzing, A., 1933 b. “Studies on Meiosis in Diploid and Triploid Solanum tuberosum L.,” Hereditas, XVII, 223–245.Google Scholar
Pal, B. P., and Nath, Pushkar, 1942. “Genetic Nature of Self- and Cross-incompatibility in Potatoes,” Nature, London, CXLIX, 246–247.Google Scholar
Reddick, D., 1939. “Scab Immunity,” Amer. Potato Journ., XVI, 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar