Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T13:31:33.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variability and restrictions against inbreeding and unequal family size in control populations of Tribolium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

D. F. Bray
D. F. Bray
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

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.

Data from three experiments bearing on the relative stability of the four mating systems required to test the restrictions against inbreeding and unequal family size were examined in relation to the results given by Robinson & Bray (1965). Tribolium castaneum was the experimental animal used in these experiments.

An analysis of variance indicated that both restrictions were probably effective (P approximately 0·10) in reducing the phenotypic variability of control population means. It seems likely that the apparent gain in stability obtained when the inbreeding restriction was used in addition to the restriction against unequal numbers is due to non-random genotypic proportions which would affect estimates of genetic variability based on assumptions of random mating.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 1966 , pp. 122 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

References

REFERENCES

Bartlett, M. S. & Kendall, D. G. (1946). The statistical analysis of variance-heterogeneity and the logarithmic transformation. Jl. R. statist. Soc. Suppl. 8, 128–138.Google Scholar
Bray, D. F. (1961). The effect of size and restrictions on inbreeding and equal representation on minimizing variation of control populations. Genetics, 46, 853.Google Scholar
Bray, D. F., Bell, A. E. & King, S. C. (1962). The importance of genotype by environment interaction with reference to control populations. Genet. Res. 3, 282–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, J. F. (1954). Breeding structure of populations. II. Effective population number. In Statistics and Mathematics in Biology, chapter 43, 543–556. Iowa State College Press: Kempthorne, Bancroft, Gowen and Lush.Google Scholar
Gowe, R. S., Robertson, A. & Latter, B. D. H. (1959). Environment and poultry breeding problems. 5. The design of poultry control strains. Poult. Sci. 38, 462–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, S. C., Carson, J. R. & Doolittle, D. P. (1959). The Connecticut and Cornel randombred populations of chickens. Wld's Poult. Sci. J. 15, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. (1964). The effect of non-random mating within inbred lines on the rate of inbreeding. Genet. Res. 5, 164–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. & Bray, D. F. (1965). Expected effects on the inbreeding coefficient and rate of gene loss of four methods of reproducing finite diploid populations. Biometrics, 21, 447–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S. (1921). Systems of mating. III. Assortative mating based on somatic resemblance. Genetics, 6, 144–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S. (1931). Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics, 16, 97–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed