, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 77–81 | Cite as

Aspects of unconscious selection and the evolution of domesticated plants

  • Charles B. Heiser


Unconscious selection may be defined as non-intentional human selection. The term was introduced by Darwin and its modern concept was developed by C.D. Darlington. Unconscious selection, or automatic selection as it is sometimes called, could have been responsible for most of the differences that distinguish domesticated seed crops from their wild progenitors, including loss of natural dispersal mechanisms, even and rapid seed germination, larger propagules, simultaneous ripening, and loss of mechanical protection as well as changes in the breeding system. Some differences, such as those in seed or fruit colors, may have developed from conscious selection at an early time. For unconscious selection to operate in the development of domesticated plants there would have to have been a deliberate planting of seeds by people.

Key words

Unconscious selection automatic selection evolution of domesticated plants origin of agriculture Darwin 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, E., 1939. A classification of weeds and weed-like plants. Science 89: 364–365.Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous, 1971. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, N.Y.Google Scholar
  3. Bewley, J.D. & M. Black, 1985. Seeds: Physiology of Development and Germination. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Darlington, C.D., 1956. Chromosome Botany. Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
  5. Darlington, C.D., 1963. Chromosome Botany and the Origins of Cultivated Plants. Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
  6. Darlington, C.D., 1969. The Evolution of Man and Society. Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
  7. Darlington, C.D., 1973. Chromosome Botany and the Origin of Cultivated Plants. Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
  8. Darwin, C., 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Murray, London.Google Scholar
  9. Darwin, C., 1868. The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. 2 vols. Murray, London.Google Scholar
  10. Darwin, C., 1875. The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. Ed. 2. 2 vols. Murray, London.Google Scholar
  11. Elias, L.G., D. Fernandez & R. Bressani, 1977. Possible effects of seed coat polyphenolics on the nutritional quality of bean protein. Jour Food Sci 44: 524–527.Google Scholar
  12. Engelbrecht, Th.H., 1917. Uber die Entstehung einiger feldmassig angebauter Kulturpflanzen, Geog Zeit 22: 328–334. 1916. (For English translation see Zeven AC, 1973. Dr ThH Englebrecht's views on the origins of cultivated plants. Euphytica 22: 279–286.).Google Scholar
  13. Hammer, K., 1984. Das Domestikationssyndrom. Kulturpflanze 32: 11–34.Google Scholar
  14. Harlan, J.R., 1975. Crops and Man. Amer Soc of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  15. Harlan, J.R., J.M.J. de Wet & G. Price, 1973. Comparative evolution of cereals. Evolution 27: 322–325.Google Scholar
  16. Hawkes, J.G., 1969. The ecological background of plant domestication. p 17–29, in PJ Ucko & GW Dimbleby (eds.) The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals. Duckworth, Chicago.Google Scholar
  17. Hawkes, J.G., 1983. The Diversity of Crop Plants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  18. Heiser, C.B., 1949. Enigma of the weeds. Frontiers 13: 148–150.Google Scholar
  19. Heiser, C.B., 1985. Of Plants and People. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.Google Scholar
  20. Lush, W.M. & W.C. Wien, 1980. The importance of seed size in early growth of wild and domesticated cowpeas. Jour Agri Sci 94: 177–182.Google Scholar
  21. Marshall, D.L., 1986. Effect of seed size on seedling success in three species of Sesbania (Fabaceae). Amer Jour Bot 73: 457–464.Google Scholar
  22. Murray, D.R., 1984. The seed and survival p 1–37, in DR Murray (ed.) Seed Physiology. Academic Press, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  23. Pickersgill, B. & C. Heiser, 1976. Cytogenetics and evolutionary change under domestication. Phil Trans R Soy Lond B 275: 55–68.Google Scholar
  24. Powell, A., M. Oliveira & S. Matthews, 1986. The role of inhibition damage in determining the vigour of white and coloured seed lots of dwarf French beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Jour Exptl Bot 37: 716–722.Google Scholar
  25. Rindos, D., 1984. The Origins of Agriculture: an Evolutionary Perspective. Academic Press, Orlando, Fla.Google Scholar
  26. Schwanitz, F., 1966. The Origin of Cultivated Plants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  27. Smith, B.N., 1985a. The role of Chenopodium as a domesticate in premaize garden systems of the eastern United States. Southeast Arch 4: 51–72.Google Scholar
  28. Smith, B.N., 1985b. Chenopodium berlandieri ssp. jonesianum: evidence for a Hopewellian domesticate from Ash Cave, Ohio. Southeast Arch 4: 107–133.Google Scholar
  29. Vavilov, N.I., 1926. Studies on the origin of cultivated plants. Bull Appl Bot 16: 139–248.Google Scholar
  30. Zohary, D., 1969. The progenitors of wheat and barley in relation to domestication and agricultural dispersal in the Old World, p 47–66, in PJ Ucko & GW Dimbleby (eds.). The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals. Duchworth, London.Google Scholar
  31. Zohary, D., 1984. Modes of evolution in plants under domestication, p 579–596, in W. Grant (ed.), Plant Biosystematics, Academic Press, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles B. Heiser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyIndiana University BloomingtonU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations