Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T02:20:05.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The cytogenetics of the differences between some Secale species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Ralph Riley
Ralph Riley
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The seed of crosses of Secale cereale with S. montanum and S. dalmaticum germinated only when S. cereale was the seed parent.

2. S. cereale was found to differ from S. montanum and S. dalmaticum by two large translocations involving three pairs of chromosomes, and a small translocation involving a fourth pair. The fertility of the F1 plants was low, and in ear morphology and perennial habit they were similar to the S. montanum and S. dalmaticum parents.

3. S. montanum and S. dalmaticum were found to be similar in gross chromosome structure and their hybrids were phenotypically intermediate and fertile.

4. The F2 of the cross S. cereale x S. dalmaticum consisted of three types, in terms of chromosome structural condition and plant morphology, those like one or other parent and those like the F1.

5. The genetic and evolutionary significance of this situation is discussed, together with the problem of the fixation of translocations in populations.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , October 1955 , pp. 377 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

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

Akdik, S. & Müntzing, A. (1949). Hereditas, Lund, 35, 67.Google Scholar
Avery, P. (1938). Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 18, 153.Google Scholar
Bergner, A. D. & Blakeslee, A. F. (1932). Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Wash., 18, 151.Google Scholar
Blakeslee, A. F. (1932). Proc. 6th Int. Congr. Genet. 1, 104.Google Scholar
Darlington, C. D. (1933). Cytologia, Tokyo, 4, 444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darlington, C. D. & Mather, K. (1949). The Elements of Genetics. London.Google Scholar
Håkansson, A. (1931). Sonderabdruck aus den Berichten der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft, 49, 228.Google Scholar
Kostoff, D. (1932). Cytologia, Tokyo, 3, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantz, L. A. & Callan, H. G. (1954). J. Genet. 52, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longley, A. E. & Sando, W. J. (1930). J. Agric. Res. 40, 683.Google Scholar
Müntzing, A. & Prakken, R. (1941). Hereditas, Lund, 27, 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ossent, H. P. (1930). Züchter, 2, 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, R. (1954). Proc. 8th Int. Congr. Bot. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Roshevitz, R. J. (1947). Acta Inst. bot. Acad. Sci. URSS, ser. 1, Fl. et Syst, 6, 105.Google Scholar
Sansome, E. R. (1938). J. Genet. 36, 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiemann, E. & Nurnberg-Krüger, U. (1952). Naturwissenschaften, 39, 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, D. H. (1954). Proc. 8th Int. Congr. Bot. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Vavilov, N. I. (1926). Studies on the Origin of Cultivated Plants. Leningrad.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1941). Amer. Nat. 75, 513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar