Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T18:45:08.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Further evidence for coadaptation in crosses between geographic populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Wyatt W. Anderson
Wyatt W. Anderson
Affiliation:
The Rockefeller University, New York City
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.

Body size in Drosophila pseudoobscura is a continuously varying character with a high heritability; it is almost certainly related to fitness. Natural populations of D. pseudoobscura from Canada to Mexico have been sampled and found to vary geographically in body size. The geographic variation for the genes determining size is to some extent correlated with the physiographic division of the West. The populations from the Pacific coast have genetically smaller flies than do those from the interior provinces. Experimental populations derived from the samples of seven widely separated natural populations were crossed to yield F1 and F2 hybrid generations. Body size in the F1's varied irregularly, while the F2's showed a consistent ‘breakdown’, the F2's being significantly smaller than their F1 parents. The F1's were significantly less variable than their parents, while the F2's were significantly more variable than their parents of the F1 generation. The natural populations possess coadapted genetic systems, with genes mutually adjusted by selection for favorable interactions. Recombination disrupted the balanced genic complexes to give the F2 breakdown and the increased F2 variability. D. pseudoobscura differs from D. subobscura in showing the effects expected in crosses between coadapted systems. This species difference lends additional support to the hypothesis that the gene pools of these two successful species respond in different ways to environmental variation. The gene pool of D. pseudoobscura is flexible and changes readily, while that of D. subobscura is relatively rigid.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , December 1968 , pp. 317 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, W. W. (1966). Genetic divergence in M. Vetukhiv's experimental populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. 3. Divergence in body size. Genet. Res. 7, 255–266.Google Scholar
Anderson, W. W. (1967). Studies on selection in natural and experimental populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Ph.D. Thesis, Rockefeller University, New York City.Google Scholar
Anderson, W. W., Dobzhansky, Th. & Kastritsis, C. D. (1967). Selection and inversion polymorphism in experimental populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura initiated with the chromosomal constitutions of natural populations. Evolution, Lancaster, Pa. 21, 664–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brncic, D. J. (1954). Heterosis and the integration of the genotype in geographic populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 39, 77–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobzhansky, Th. (1949). Observations and experiments on natural selection in Drosophila. Proc. 8th Intern. Congr. Genet., 1948. Hereditas (suppl. vol.), 210–224.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, Th. & Spassky, B. (1960). Release of genetic variability through recombination. V. Breakup of synthetic lethals by crossing over in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Zool. Jb. 88, 57–66.Google Scholar
Frahm, R. R. & Kojima, K. (1966). Comparison of selection responses on body weight under divergent larval density conditions in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 54, 625–637.Google Scholar
Kalmus, H. (1943). A factorial experiment on the mineral requirements of Drosophila culture. Am. Nat. 77, 376–380.Google Scholar
King, J. C. (1955 a). Integration of the gene pool as demonstrated by resistance to DDT. Am. Nat. 89, 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. C. (1955 b). Evidence for the integration of the gene pool from studies of DDT resistance in Drosophila. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 20, 311–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitagawa, O. (1967). Genetic divergence in M. Vetukhiv's experimental populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. 4. Relative viability. Genet. Res. 10, 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kojima, K. & Kelleher, T. M. (1963). A comparison of purebred and crossbred selection schemes with two populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 48, 57–72.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1967). The genetics of complex systems. Proc. 5th Berkely Symp. on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1967, pp. 439–455.Google Scholar
MacFarquhar, A. M. & Robertson, F. W. (1963). The lack of evidence for coadaptation in crosses between geographical races of Drosophila subobscura Coll. Genet. Res. 4, 104–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moriwaki, D. & Tobari, Y. N. (1963). Maternal effects and heterosis in Drosophila ananassae. Genetics 48, 171–176.Google Scholar
Ohba, S. (1961). Analytical studies on the experimental populations of Drosophila. I. The effect of larval population density upon the preadult growth in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila virilis, with special reference to their nutritional conditions. Okayama Univ. Biol. J. 7, 87–125.Google Scholar
Poulson, D. F. (1934). Times of development of the two races of Drosophila pseudoobscura. J. exp. Zool. 68, 237–245.Google Scholar
Prout, T. (1959). Correction for maternal influences in population sampling. Drosoph. Inf. Serv. 33, 154–155.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. H. & Kojima, K. (1965). The kinds of genetic variability in relation to selection responses in Drosophila fecundity. Genetics 52, 583–598.Google Scholar
Robertson, F. W. (1954). Studies in quantitative inheritance. V. Chromosome analyses of crosses between selected and unselected lines of different body size in Drosophila melanogaster. J Genet. 52, 494–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffe, H. (1953). A method for judging all contrasts in the analysis of variance. Biometrika 40, 87–104.Google Scholar
Scheffe, H. (1959). The Analysis of Variance. New York City: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Sokoloff, A. (1965). Geographic variation of quantitative characters in populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution, Lancaster, Pa. 19, 300–310.Google Scholar
Sokoloff, A. (1966). Morphological variation in natural and experimental populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution, Lancaster, Pa. 20, 49–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spassky, B. (1943). Cream of wheat-molasses fly medium. Drosoph. Inf. Serv. 17, 67.Google Scholar
Tantawy, A. O. (1961). Effects of temperature on productivity and genetic variance of body size in populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics, 46, 227–238.Google Scholar
Tantawy, A. O. & Vetukhiv, M. (1960). Effects of size on fecundity, longevity, and viability in populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Am. Nat. 94, 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetukhiv, M. (1953). Viability of hybrids between local populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 39, 30–34.Google Scholar
Vetukhiv, M. (1954). Integration of the genotype in local populations of three species of Drosophila. Evolution, Lancaster, Pa. 8, 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetukhiv, M. (1956). Fecundity of hybrids between geographic populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution, Lancaster, Pa. 10, 139–146.Google Scholar
Vetukhiv, M. (1957). Longevity of hybrids between geographic populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution, Lancaster, Pa. 11, 348–360.Google Scholar
Vetukhiv, M. & Beardmore, J. A. (1959). Effect of environment upon the manifestation of heterosis and homeostasis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 44, 759–768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallace, B. (1955). Inter-population hybrids in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution, Lancaster, Pa. 9, 302–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, B. (1959). Influence of genetic systems on geographic distribution. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 24, 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, B. & Vetukhiv, M. (1955). Adaptive organization of the gene pools of Drosophila populations. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 20, 303–310.Google Scholar
Wright, S. & Dobzhansky, Th. (1946). Genetics of natural populations. XII. Experimental reproduction of some of the changes caused by natural selection in certain populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 31, 142–160.Google Scholar