Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T18:18:13.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic variation of relative growth rates in Notonecta undulata: I. The relation of femur length to body length

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

R. K. Misra  and
E. C. R. Reeve
R. K. Misra
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh, 9
E. C. R. Reeve
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh, 9
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper presents the first part of a further analysis of data collected many years ago by Clark and Hersh on allometric growth in Notonecta undulata, the water boatman. The data consist of measurements of a number of dimensions, taken each instar, on 72 individuals reared separately from egg to adult. These individuals were the progeny of nine wild females, so that a rough estimate can be made of the magnitude of genetic effects by comparing the variances within and between families. The paper examines the allometric relationship between femur length of the three legs and body length.

The statistical problems in this type of analysis are discussed. There are significant deviations from linearity when the six points for femur length are plotted against body length on a double log graph, but these are small compared with the overall linear trend. The growth coefficients (k) are calculated for the three femurs against body length for each individual, and are analysed for differences between femurs, between sexes and between and within families. This analysis shows that there are significant differences between the three femurs in growth coefficient, but the growth gradient, or pattern of k values between the three femurs does not vary significantly from one individual to another. On the other hand, mean k for the three femurs shows significant individual variation and also a significant variation between families. From this it appears that about one third of the phenotypic variance in mean relative growth rate of the femurs is due to genetic effects.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , November 1964 , pp. 384 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

References

REFERENCES

Clark, L. B. & Hersh, A. H. (1939). A study of relative growth in Notonecta undulata. Growth 3, 347–372.Google Scholar
Clark, W. E. le Gros & Medawar, P. B. (eda.) (1945). Essays on Growth and Form. Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Cock, A. G. (1963). Genetical studies on growth and form in the fowl. 1. Phenotypic variation in the relative growth pattern of shank length and body weight. Genet. Res. 4, 167–192.Google Scholar
Feldstein, M. J. & Hersh, A. H. (1935). The determination of genetic constants of relative growth. Amer. Nat. 69, 344–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. (1950). The accuracy of growth curves. Proc. roy. Soc. Lond. B. 137, 488–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Hemmingsen, A. M. (1934). A statistical analysis of the differences in body size of related species. Vidensk. Medd. natuhr. Foren. Kbh. 98, 125.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. (1932). Problems of relative growth. Methuen & Co., London.Google Scholar
Kermack, K. A. & Haldane, J. B. S. (1950). Organic correlation and allometry. Biometrika 37, 30–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Misra, R. K. & Reeve, E. C. R. (1964). Clines in body dimensions in populations of Drosophila subobscura. Genet. Res. 5, 240–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeve, E. C. R. (1940). Relative growth in the snout of anteaters. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. A, 110, 47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeve, E. C. R. & Huxley, J. S. (1945). Some problems in the study of allometric growth. In: Clark & Medawar (1945), 125–156.Google Scholar
Richards, O. W. & Kavanagh, A. J. (1945). The analysis of growing form. In: Clark & Medawar (1945), 188–230.Google Scholar
Reeve, E. C.R. & Robertson, F. W. (1954). Studies in quantitative inheritance. VI. Sternite chaeta number in Drosphila: a metameric quantitative character. Z. indukt. Abstamm.- u. VererbLehre, 86, 269–288.Google Scholar
Robertson, F. W. (1962). Changing the relative size of the body parts of Drosophila by selection. Genet. Res. 3, 169–180.Google Scholar
Tanner, J. M. (1962). Growth at Adolescence. 2nd edn.Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Teissier, G. (1935). Croissance des variants sexuels de Maia squinado. Trav. Sta. biol. Roscoff, fasc. 13, 91–130.Google Scholar
Teissier, G. (1948). La relation d'allometrie. Sa signification statistique et biologique. Biometrics 4, 14–53.Google Scholar
Teissier, G. (1955). Allométrie de taille et variabilité chez Maia squinado. Arch. Zool. exper. et gen. 92, 221–264.Google Scholar
Yates, F. (1950). The place of statistics in the study of growth and form. Proc. roy. Soc. Lond. B, 137, 479–488.Google Scholar