Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 132, Issue 4, pp 279–298 | Cite as

Evolution of mating systems inLycopersicon hirsutum as deduced from genetic variation in electrophoretic and morphological characters

  • Charles M. Rick
  • Jon F. Fobes
  • Steven D. Tanksley


Populations in the central part of the distribution are mostly self-incompatible and tend to be highly variable for allozymic and morphological characters; those in the north and south limits are entirely self-compatible and tend to be genetically highly uniform. Gradations in variability are observed in the intermediate regions. Flower size tends to diminish in the peripheral areas. The extensive differences in genotype observed between the north and south marginal populations are not compatible with the concept of a single origin of self-compatibility, but suggest, along with other evidence, that the substitution of different alleles resulted from differentiation in the marginal areas from older, self-incompatible stocks of the central region. The conclusions regarding patterns of genetic variation and nature of evolution of mating systems inL. hirsutum conform to a remarkable extent with those reached previously forL. pimpinellifolium, a species that is distinct in morphology and ecological preferences yet has a similar latitudinal distribution.

Key words

Lycopersicon hirsutum Solanaceae Allozymes clinal variation electrophoresis evolution of mating systems isozymes self-incompatibility 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, H. G., 1955: Self-compatibility and establishment after long-distance dispersal. — Evolution9, 347–348.Google Scholar
  2. Jain, S. K., 1976: Population structure and the effects of breeding system. InFrankel, O. H., Hawkes, J. G. (Eds.): Plant Genetic Resources: Today and Tomorrow. — London: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  3. Levin, D. A., 1978: Genetic variation in annual phlox: self-compatible versus self-incompatible species. — Evolution32, 245–263.Google Scholar
  4. Lewis, D., Crowe, L. K., 1958: Unilateral interspecific incompatibility in flowering plants. — Heredity12, 233–285.Google Scholar
  5. Martin, F. W., 1963: Distribution and interrelationships of incompatibility barriers in theLycopersicon hirsutum Humb. & Bonpl. complex. — Evolution17, 519–528.Google Scholar
  6. McGuire, D. C., Rick, C. M., 1954: Self-incompatibility in species ofLycopersicon sect.Eriopersicon and hybrids withL. esculentum. — Hilgardia23, 101–124.Google Scholar
  7. Muller, C. H., 1940: A revision of the genusLycopersicon. — U.S. Dept. Agric. Misc. Publ.382.Google Scholar
  8. Nettancourt, D. de, 1977: Self-incompatibility. — Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Rick, C. M., Fobes, J. F., 1975a: Allozymes of Galápagos tomatoes: polymorphism, geographic distribution, and affinities. — Evolution23, 443–457.Google Scholar
  10. —, —, 1975b: Allozyme variation in the cultivated tomato and closely related species. — Bull. Torrey Bot. Club102, 376–384.Google Scholar
  11. —, —, 1976: Peroxidase complex and concomitant anodal and cathodal variation in red-fruited tomato species. — Proceedings, National Academy of Science73, 900–904.Google Scholar
  12. —, —, Holle, M., 1977: Genetic variation inLycopersicon pimpinellifolium: evidence of evolutionary change in mating systems. — Pl. Syst. Evol.127, 139–170.Google Scholar
  13. —, 1978: Rates of cross-pollination inLycopersicon pimpinellifolium: impact of genetic variation in floral characters. — Pl. Syst. Evol.129, 31–44.Google Scholar
  14. —, 1976: Genetic and biosystematic studies on two new sibling species ofLycopersicon from interandean, Perú. — Theor. Appl. Genetics47, 55–68.Google Scholar
  15. Singh, R., 1976: Substrate-specific enzyme variation in natural populations ofDrosophila pseudoobscura. — Genetics82, 507–526.Google Scholar
  16. Solbrig, O., Rollins, R. C., 1977: The evolution of autogamy in species of the mustard genusLeavenworthia. — Evolution31, 265–281.Google Scholar
  17. Stoner, A. K., 1970: Breeding for insect resistance in vegetables. — Hort-Science5, 76–79.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles M. Rick
    • 1
  • Jon F. Fobes
    • 2
  • Steven D. Tanksley
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Vegetable CropsUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of HorticultureMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations