Journal of Genetics

, 33:25 | Cite as

The frequency oe heterozygosis in free-living populations ofdrosophila melanogaster anddrosophila subobsgura

  • Cecil Goedon


  1. 1.

    Free-living populations ofD. melanogaster andD. subobscura show a considerable incidence of heterozygosis for autosomal recessives. In 1933 frequencies wereD. subobscum 0.277 ±0.117,D. melanogaster 0.177±0.100, and in 1934D. subobscum 0.636 ± 0.149 andD. melanogaster 0.924 ± 0.251. Differences between successive years are largely accounted for by improvements in technique.

  2. 2.

    InD. subobscura no sex-linked mutants were found, and inD. melanogaster only one. No dominants, sex-linked or autosomal, were found in either species; one mutant, shaven, inD. subobscura exhibited incomplete dominance only after selection for high expression.

  3. 3.

    The realisation of mutants was noted and a coefficient of realisation of each mutant was calculated. A great many mutants of low realisation were found. In many cases the low realisation was shown to be due to the action of genes which modified mutants back to wild-type.

  4. 4.

    Of the mutants found in 1933 inD. melanogaster two are hitherto unrecorded, one is a more intense allelomorph of cinnabar, one an allelomorph in the ebony series, and one, rotated abdomen, at the same locus as the rotated, abdomen already known. The investigation of the identity of the 1934 mutants is not yet completed.



Cinnabar Autosomal Dominant Wild Female Incomplete Dominance Posterior Cross 
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.


  1. Bateson, W. (1906). “Progress of Genetic Research.” Address to the third conference on hybridisation and plant research,Reports of Boyal Horticultural Society.Google Scholar
  2. Dubinin, N. P. (1928). “The influence of consecutive fertilisations on the offspring inD. melanogaster.”J. exp. Biol. (Russian), pp. 131-59.Google Scholar
  3. Dubinin, N. P. (1931). “The genetico-automatic processes and their significance for the mechanism of organic evolution.”Ibid. (Russian), pp. 463-79.Google Scholar
  4. Dubinin, N. P.,Heptner, M. A.,Bessertnaia, S. J.,Goldat, S. J.,Pamina, K. A.,Pogossian, E.,Saprikina, S. W.,Sidorov, B. N.,Perry, L. W. andTsubina, M. G. (1934). “Experimental study of the ecogenotypes ofDrosophila melanogaster, Parts 1 and 2.”J. exp. Biol. (Russian), pp. 166-217.Google Scholar
  5. Fisher, R. A. (1930). “Evolution of dominance in certain polymorphic species.”Amer. Nat. 64, 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fisher, R. A. (1831a).The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fisher, R. A. (1931b). “The evolution of dominance.”Biol. Rev. 1, 345–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haldane, J. B. S. (1927). “A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection. Part V.”Proc. Camb. phil. Soc. 23, 838–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. —— (1930). “A note on Fisher’s theory of the origin of dominance and a correlation between dominance and linkage.”Amer. Nat. 64, 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. —— (1932a).The Causes of Evolution. Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
  11. —— (1932b). “A method for investigating recessive characters in man.”J. Genet. 25, 251–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. —— (1933). “The part played by recurrent mutations in evolution.”Amer. Nat. 67, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jenkin, F. J. (dy1930). “Enforced inbreeding of some plant species.”Publ. Welsh Pl. Breed. Sta. pp. 103, 153, 160.Google Scholar
  14. Morgan, T. H.,Bridges, C. B. andSturtevant, A. H. (1925). “The genetics ofDrosophila.”Bibliogr. Genet. 2.Google Scholar
  15. Muller, H. J. (1932). “Further studies on the nature and causes of gene mutation.”Proc. 6th Int. Cong. Genet. pp. 213-52.Google Scholar
  16. Nachtsheim, Hans (1928). “Eine Methode zur Prüfung der Lebensclauer genotypisch verschiedener Spermien beiDrosophila.”Proc. 5th Int. Cong. Genet. pp. 1143-7.Google Scholar
  17. Nonidez, J. F. (1920). “Internal phenomena of reproduction inDrosophila.”Biol. Bull. Woods Hole,39, 207–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Spencer, Warren, P. (1935). “Phenogenetic peculiarities inD. funebris.”Amer. Nat. 69, 80.Google Scholar
  19. Spooner, G. M. (1932). “An experiment on breeding wild pairs ofGammarus chevreuxi at a high temperature with an account of two new recessive types of red eye.”J. Mar. Biol. Ass. 18, 337–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Timoféeff-Ressovsky, H. A. (1930). “Römtgenbestrahlumgsversuche mitDrosophila funebris.”Nalurwissenschaften,18, 431–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Timoféeff-Ressovsicy, N. W. (1934). “Über den Einfluss des genotypischen Milieus und der Aussenbedingungen auf die Realisation des Genotypes.”Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, pp. 53-106.Google Scholar
  22. Timoféeff-Ressovsky, H. A. andTimoféeff-Ressovsky, N. W. (1927). “Genetische Analyse einer freilebenclenDrosophila melanogaster Population.”Roux. Arch. Entw. Mech. Organ. 109, 70–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tsohbtverikoff, S. S. (1926). “Some moments of the evolutionary process.”J. exp. Biol. (Russian), pp. 1-54.Google Scholar
  24. Tsohbtverikoff, S. S. (1928). “Über die genetische Beschaffenheit wilder Populationen.”Verh. V. Int. Kong. für Ver. pp. 1499-1501.Google Scholar
  25. Wright, Sewall (1929). “Fisher’s theory of dominance.”Amer. Nat. 63, 553–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. —— (1931). “Evolution in Mendelian populations.”Genetics,16, 97–159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. —— (1934). “Physiological and evolutionary theories of dominance.”Amer. Nat. 68, 24–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 1936

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecil Goedon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity CollegeLondon

Personalised recommendations