Advertisement

Euphytica

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 179–187 | Cite as

The origin of lentil and its wild genepool

  • G. Ladizinsky
Article

Summary

Following hybridization experiments and cytogenetic analysis of interspecific hybrids three chromosome interchanges were found between the cultivated lentil L. culinaris and L. nigricans, and only one between the cultivated species and L. orientalis. This indicates that the latter species is more likely to be wild progenitor of lentil. The partial fertility of the interspecific hybrids indicate further that both L. nigricans and L. orientalis should be included in the wild genepool of lentil, and their variation can be exploited by relatively simple hybridization techniques. The wild lentils L. orientalis and L. nigricans are morphologically very similar but reproductively strongly isolated from one another by the albino seedling of their hybrids. It has been suggested that the populations of L. orientalis that gave rise to the cultivated lentil still possess a similar chromosome arrangement as in L. culinaris and are also capable of forming normal hybrids with L. nigricans. According to these considerations it is unlikely that lentil originated from populations at the south western corner of the distribution area of L. orientalis.

Index words

Taxonomy cultivated plants domestication hybridization chromosome associations Lens culinaris Lens orientalis Lens nigricans 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ball, P. W., 1968. Lens. In: Tutin, T. G. et al. (Eds), Flora Europaea, 2: 136. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Barulina, H., 1930. Lentil of the U.S.S.R. and of other countries. Bull. Appl. Bot. Pl. Breed. Suppl. 40: 1–319.Google Scholar
  3. Davis, P. E. & U., Plitmann, 1970. Lens Miller.: In: Davis, P. E. (Ed.), Flora of Turkey 3: 325–328. Edinburgh Univ. Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  4. Renfrew, J. M., 1969. The archeological evidence for the domestication of plants: methods and problems. In: Ucko, P. J. & G. W., Dimbleby (Eds), The domestication and exploitation of plants and animals. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  5. Renfrew, J. M., 1973. Palaeoethnobotany. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Sharma, S. K. & S., Mukhopadyay, 1963. Karyotype consistency in different strains of Lens esculenta Moench, as worked out through recent techniques. Ind. Agric. 7: 103–111.Google Scholar
  7. Williams, J. T., A. M. C., Sanchez & M. T., Jackson, 1974. Studies on lentils and their variation. I. The taxonomy of the species. SABRAO Journal 6: 133–145.Google Scholar
  8. Wilson, V. H. & A. G., Law, 1972. Natural crossing in Lens esculenta Moench. J. Am. Hort. Sci. 97: 142–143.Google Scholar
  9. Zohary, D., 1972. The wild progenitor and the place of origin of the cultivated lentil, Lens culinaris. Econ. Bot. 26: 326–332.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© H. Veenman En Zonen B.V. 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Ladizinsky
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of AgricultureThe Hebrew UniversityRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations