Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T03:50:39.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The comparison of wheat-rye and wheat-Aegilops amphidiploids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

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

Extract

1. The diploid species Secale cereale (2n= 14) is self-incompatible, Aegilops longissima (2n = 14) and A. caudata (2n = 14) are self-compatible. A. longissitna is usually self-pollinated and A. caudata is usually out-pollinated.

2. Meiotic behaviour, constancy of chromosome number and seed fertility have been examined in the three octoploid amphidiploids derived from crosses of Triticum vulgare variety Holdfast (2n = 42) with S. cereale A. longissima and A. caudata respectively.

3. All the amphidiploids had cells in which some chromosomes were unpaired at first metaphase of meiosis. This meiotic irregularity is not, therefore, related to the breeding system of the diploid parent.

4. The fertility of the amphidiploids was not related to their meiotic regularity.

5. The least fertile amphidiploid was derived from the self-incompatible diploid S. cereale. The most fertile amphidiploid was derived from the selfcompatible, self-pollinating diploid, A. longissima.

6. It is suggested that the infertility of the wheatrye amphidiploid may result from interactions between genotypes adapted to different breeding systems, rather than from the homozygosity in the amphidiploid of deleterious recessive genes derived from the outbreeding rye parent.

7. The demonstration of the independence of meiotic regularity and fertility will complicate selection work on wheat-rye amphidiploid material.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , August 1957 , pp. 246 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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

Bell, G. D. H. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, G. D. H. & Sachs, L. (1953). J. Agric. Sci. 43, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, V. & Riley, R. (1955). Nature, Lond., 175, 1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamm, R. (1936). Hereditas, Lund, 22, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, M. W. & Tu, D. S. (1947). Bot. Bull. Acad. sinica, 1, 183.Google Scholar
Lindschau, M. & Oehler, E. (1935). Züchter, 7, 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundquist, A. (1954). Hereditas, Lund, 40, 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müntzing, A. (1935). Hereditas, Lund, 20, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müntzing, A. (1936). Züchter, 8, 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müntzing, A. (1939). Hereditas, Lund, 25, 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müntzing, A. (1948). Svalöf 1886–1946 (ed. Å. Åkerman, O. Tedin and K. Fröier), p. 324. Lund.Google Scholar
O'Mara, J. G. (1940). Genetics, 25, 402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Mara, J. G. (1951). Cytologia, Tokyo, 16, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Mara, J. G. (1953). Bot. Rev. 19, 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, R. (1956). New Phytol. 55, 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rimpau, W. (1891). Kreuzungsprodukte landwirtschaftliche Kulturpflanze Landwirt. Jahrb. 20, 335.Google Scholar
Sears, E. R. (1941). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 337.Google Scholar