Economic Botany

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 86–104 | Cite as

Dissemination pathways of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, Fabaceae) deduced from phaseolin electrophoretic variability. II. Europe and Africa

  • P. Gepts
  • F. A. Bliss


Phaseolin type, determined by one-dimensional sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, was used to suggest dissemination routes of common bean (Thaseolus vulgaris) cultivars from their areas of domestication to Europe and Africa. In the Iberian Peninsula, ‘C’ was the most frequent phaseolin type. Only in Chile has a comparably high ‘C’ frequency been observed previously, indicating that many Iberian cultivars may have been introduced from Chile, or that many Chilean cultivars may have come from the Iberian Peninsula. In Europe (outside the Iberian Peninsula), most cultivars exhibited a ‘T’ type. The high frequency of this type may be related to the high frequency of green pod cultivars among European cultivars. Most African cultivars exhibited a ‘T’ or a ‘C’ type and may have been introduced from Brazil, the Iberian Peninsula, or western Europe. ‘T’ or ‘C’ cultivars had larger seeds than ‘S’ cultivars. The phaseolin patterns of cultivars with different seed types and of early French cultivars are discussed.


Iberian Peninsula Common Bean Economic Botany Seed Size Phaseolin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Ammerman, A. J., and L. L. Cavalli-Sforza. 1984. The Neolithic transition and the genetics of populations in Europe. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  2. Berglund-Brücher, O., and H. Brücher. 1976. The South American wild bean (Phaseollis aborigineus Burk.) as ancestor of the common bean. Econ. Bot. 30:257–272.Google Scholar
  3. Bock, H. 1546. Kreuterbuch. A 1577 edition of this work, with the section on common bean unaltered, was reprinted in 1964 by K. Kölb, München, West Germany.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J. W. S., F. A. Bliss, and T. C. Hall. 1981. Genetic variation in the subunits of globulin-1 storage protein of French bean. Theor. Appl. Genet. 59:83–88.Google Scholar
  5. —, J. R. McFerson, F. A. Bliss, and T. C. Hall. 1982. Genetic divergence among commercial classes ofPhaseolus vulgaris in relation to phaseolin pattern. HortScience 17:752–754.Google Scholar
  6. Cafati, K. C. 1973. Variedades de frijol. Investigatión y progreso agrícola, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agrícolas (INIA), Chile 5:10–11.Google Scholar
  7. Cariot, A. 1865. Haricot. In Botanique elémentaire, descriptive, et usuelle, Vol. 3:187–188. Flore horticole et dictionnaire. Girard et Josserand, Paris.Google Scholar
  8. Dagnelie, P. 1969. Théorie et méthodes statistiques. 2 vol. Duculot, Gembloux, Belgium.Google Scholar
  9. Dioscorides. 1 st Century A.D. The Greek herbal of Dioscorides, illustrated by a Byzantine, A.D. 512, Englished by J. Goodyer A.D. 1655, edited and first printed A.D. 1933 by R.T. Gunther. Facsimile (1968) of the 1934 edition. Hafner, London.Google Scholar
  10. Dodoens, R. 1554. Cruydeboeck, Plantijn, Antwerp. Reprinted in 1971 by the De Forel, Nieuwendijk.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, A. M. 1976. Beans. Pages 168–172in N. W. Simmonds, ed., Evolution of crop plants. Longman, London.Google Scholar
  12. Fuchs, L. 1543. Von Welschen Bonen. Cap. CCLXIXin Neu Kreuterbuch. Michael Isengrin, Basel. Reprinted in 1964 by K. Kölb, München, West Germany.Google Scholar
  13. Gepts, P. 1984. Nutritional and evolutionary implications of phaseolin seed protein variability in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  14. —, and F. A. Bliss. 1986. Phaseolin variability among wild and cultivated common beans from Colombia. Econ. Bot. 40:469–478.Google Scholar
  15. —, K. Kmiecik, P. Pereira, and F. A. Bliss. 1988. Dissemination pathways of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) deduced from phaseolin electrophoretic variability. I. The Americas. Econ. Bot. 42:73–85.Google Scholar
  16. —, T. C. Osborn, K. Rashka, and F. A. Bliss, 1986. Electrophoretic analysis of phaseolin protein variability in wild forms and landraces of the common bean,Phaseolus vulgaris L.: evidence for two centers of domestication. Econ. Bot. 40:451–468.Google Scholar
  17. Gerard, J. 1633. The herbal or general history of plants. Reprinted in 1975 by Adam J. Slip, Joice Norton, and Roger Whitakers, London, Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Gibault, G. 1912. Haricot commun (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Pages 301–310in Histoire des légumes. Librairie Horticole, Paris.Google Scholar
  19. Gray, A., and J. H. Trumbull. 1883. Review of De Candolle’s origin of cultivated plants; with annotations upon certain American species. Amer. J. Sci. 26:128–138.Google Scholar
  20. Hedrick, U. P. 1931. The vegetables of New York: the beans of New York. New York Agric. Exp. Sta. Rep. 1:1–110.Google Scholar
  21. Heresbach, C. 1570. Rei rusticae libri quatuor. Ioannis Birchmann, Cologne. Reprinted in 1970, in German translation, by Hain, Meisenheim, West Germany.Google Scholar
  22. Leakey, C. L. A. 1970. The improvement of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) in East Africa. Pages 99–128 in C. L. A. Leakey, ed., Crop improvement in East Africa. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, U.K.Google Scholar
  23. Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species plantarum. Reprinted in 1957 by the Ray Society, London.Google Scholar
  24. Ma, Y., and F. A. Bliss. 1978. Seed proteins of common bean. Crop Sci. 18:431–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maréchal, R., J.-M. Mascherpa, and F. Stainier. 1978. Etude taxonomique d’un groupe complexe d’espèces des genres Phaseolus et Vigna (Papilionaceae) sur la base de données morphologiques et polliniques traitées par l’analyse informatique. Boissiera 28:1–273.Google Scholar
  26. Martens, G. von. 1869. Die Gartenbohnen. Ihre Verbreitung, Cultur und Benutzung. 2nd ed. Ulmer, Ravensburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, P. 1754. The gardeners dictionary. Reprinted in 1969 by Cramer, Lehre, West Germany.Google Scholar
  28. Orkin, S. H., and H. H. Kazazian. 1984. The mutation and polymorphism of the human β-globin gene and its surrounding DNA. Ann. Rev. Genet. 18:131–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pagnier, J., J. G. Mears, O. Dunda-Belkhodja, K. E. Schaefer-Rego, C. Beldfjord, R. L. Nagel, and D. Labie. 1984. Evidence for the multicentric origin of the sickle-cell hemoglobin gene in Africa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 81:1771–1773.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Palmer, J. D., R. A. Jorgensen, and W. F. Thompson. 1985. Chloroplast DNA variation and evolution in Pisum: patterns of change and phylogenetic analysis. Genetics 109:195–213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Parmentier, P. 1902. Traité élémentaire et pratique de botanique agricole. Octave Doin, Paris.Google Scholar
  32. Simmonds, N. W. 1976. Evolution of crop plants. Longman, London, England.Google Scholar
  33. Sturtevant, E. L. 1919. Phaseolus vulgaris. Common bean, haricot, kidney bean; bush bean. Pole beans. Pages 422-428in U. P. Hedrick, ed., Sturtevant’s notes on edible plants. New York Agric. Exp. Sta. 27th Annual Rep. 2(2).Google Scholar
  34. Tabernaemontanus, J. T. ca. 1590. Von Bonen. Pages 876–879 in Krauterbuch. Königs, Basel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  35. Theophrastus. ca. 300 b.c. De historia plantarum. Reprinted in 1971. German translation (Naturgeschichte der Gewächse, by K. Sprengel) by Wissenschaftlich Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, West Germany.Google Scholar
  36. Tournefort, T. de. 1797. Le haricot,Phaseolus. Pages 374–378in Eléments de botanique, Vol. 2. Bernusset, Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  37. Turner, W. 1538. Libellus de re herbaria. Reprinted in 1965 by the Ray Society, London.Google Scholar
  38. Van Rheenen, H. A. 1979. Diversity of food beans in Kenya. Econ. Bot. 33:448–454.Google Scholar
  39. Westphal, E. 1974.Phaseolus. Pages 129–176in Pulses in Ethiopia, their taxonomy and agricultural significance. Agric. Res. Rep. No. 815. Center for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation (PUDOC), Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  40. Wittmack, L. 1880. [Untitled] Sitzungsber. Bot. Ver. Prov. Brandenburg 21:176–184.Google Scholar
  41. —. 1888a. Die Heimat der Bohnen und der Kürbisse. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 6:374–380.Google Scholar
  42. -Wittmack, L.. 1888b. Die Nutzpflanzen der alten Peruaner. éricanistes: p. 325–348.Google Scholar
  43. Zeven, A C. 1979. Collecting genetic resources in highly industrialized Europe, especially the Netherlands. Pages 49–58in Proc. Conf. Broadening Genet. Base of Crops. Center for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation (PUDOC), Wageningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Gepts
    • 1
  • F. A. Bliss
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HorticultureUniversity of WisconsinMadison

Personalised recommendations