Journal of Genetics

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 441–474 | Cite as

Cytogenetics ofbrassica hybrids and species

  • S. M. Sikka
Article

Summary

The cytological behaviour of three interspecific hybrids and twelve species ofBrassica is described and the following are the chief results obtained:
  1. 1.

    The pairing of chromosomes in the F1 crossB. juncea Coss. (2n = 36) XB. campestris L. var.sarson Prain (2n = 20) takes place according to the Drosera scheme. With the exception of one cell, which showed 1iv+9II + 6I, all the rest showed 10II + 8I. From this and other evidence the amphidiploid origin ofB. juncea as a hybrid betweenB. campestris andB. nigra has been proved.

     
  2. 2.

    In the crossB. Tournefortii Gouan (2n = 20) xB. trilocularis H.f.T. (2n = 20) the pairing of chromosomes is very variable. Nuclei with total lack of pairing to those showing a quadrivalent besides 1–3 bivalents were observed. The whole meiotic process in the hybrid is very irregular, resulting in the formation of dyads, monads and tryads to the extent of 25, 8 and 5%, respectively.

     
  3. 3.

    The conjugation of chromosomes in the hybridB. trilocularis H.f.T. (2n = 20) xB. rapa L. (2n = 20) is complete, 10II being invariably formed at diakinesis and metaphase I. Non-disjunction of a bivalent was frequently observed at anaphase I. But for this irregularity the whole meiotic process is quite regular.

     
  4. 4.

    B. sinapistrum Boiss. has 2n = 18,B. Tournefortii Gouan 2n = 20,B. monensis Huds. 2n=24 andB. rugosa 2n=38 chromosomes.

     
  5. 5.

    Somatic chromosomes of nine species were examined, with special reference to the number of satellites and muceloli. A complete correspondence between the two has been found.

     
  6. 6.

    WhereasB. nigra Koch, which has the lowest chromosome number in the genus (2n=16) shows four satellites and four nucleoli,B. oleracea L. (2n = 18),B. rapa L. (2n = 20),B. campestris L. (2n = 20),B. trilocularis (2n = 20) andB. Tournefortii (2n = 2) show only one pair each. This suggests that the latter five species have lost the extra pair of satellites by mutation during the course of evolution. The presence of six satellites and six nucleoli inB. juncea and four nucleoli inB. napus and.B. rugosa has been correlated with their amphidiploid nature, and is additional proof of this.

     
  7. 7.

    Other interesting features in somatic mitosis, such as somatic pairing, sporadic aberrations in chromosome numbers and formation of chromatin bridges, have been described.

     
  8. 8.

    From the secondary association of chromosomes in three species the primary basic number for the genus has been inferred to be five. This conclusion is supported by the chromosome numbers of some related genera in which the basic number five has been retained for polyploidy. In certain other genera the hexaploid number thirty is basic, and some species have become tetraploid on this basis. Some other evidence has also been adduced to show that all the monogenomic species ofBrassica have a common origin.

     
  9. 9.

    WhileB. campeslris, B. trilocularis, B. Tournefortii andB. rapa show exclusively bivalent formation at meiosis,B. juncea, B. sinapistrum andB. monensis show occasionally a quadrivalent.B. nigra andB. Wrightii show in addition higher multivalents. The probable reasons for the formation of multivalents in each of this species have been discussed.

     
  10. 10.

    Presence of relatively inverted segments of chromosomes has Journ. of Genetics Sl been inferred in some species from the chromatin bridges formed at meiosis.

     
  11. 11.

    The role played by gene mutations, structurai changes of chromosomes and hybridization in species formation inBrassica has been discussed. Of these hybridization has played the most important part, as amphidiploidy has frequently occurred in the genus.

     

Keywords

Pollen Mother Cell Somatic Chromosome Polar View Secondary Association Meiotic Process 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aase, H. C. (1930). “Cytology ofTriticum, Secale and.Aegilops hybrids with, reference to phylogeny.”Pes. Stud. State Coll. Wash.2, 1–60.Google Scholar
  2. Alam, Z. (1936). “Cytological studies of some Indian oleiferous Cruciferae. III.”Ann. Bot., Bond.,50, 85–102.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, E. G. (1935). “Chromosome interchanges in maize.”Genetics,20, 70–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Babcock, E. B.,Stebbins, G. L. &Jenkins, J. A. (1937). “Chromosomes and phylogeny in some genera of the Crepidinae.”Cytologia, Tokyo, Pujii Jub. Vol. pp. 183–310.Google Scholar
  5. Barber., H. N. (1938). “Delayed mitosis and chromatid fusion.”Nature, Lond.,141, 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baue, E. (1932). Cited from Gates (1938).Google Scholar
  7. Beadle, G. W. (1930). “Genetical and cytological studies of Mendelian asynapsis in maize.”Mem. Cornell agric. Exp. Sta. no. 129.Google Scholar
  8. Beadle, G. W. (1931). “A gene in maize for supernumerary cell divisions following meiosis.”Mem. Cornell agric. Exp. Sta. no. 135.Google Scholar
  9. Belar, K. (1929a). “Untersuchingen an den Spermatocyten von Chorthippus(Stenobothrus) lineatus Panz.”Roux Arch. Entw. Mech. Organ,147, 359–484.Google Scholar
  10. —— (1929b). “Untersuchungen an den Staubfaden, Haarzellen und Blattmeristemzellen vonTradescantia virginica.”Z. Zellforsch. 10, 73–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Belling, J. (1927). “The attachments of chromosomes at the reduction division in flowering plants.”J. Genet.18, 177–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bergner, A. D., Cartledge, J. L. &Blakeslee, A. F. (1934). “Chromosome behaviour due to a gene which prevents metaphase pairing inDatura.” Cytologia, Tokyo,6, 19–37.Google Scholar
  13. Bhatia, G. S. (1938). “The cytology of some Indian wheats.”Ann. Bot., Lond., N.S.2, 335–72.Google Scholar
  14. Blackburn, K.B. &Harrison, J. W. H. (1924). “The origin of a fertile hexaploid form in thePimpinellifoliae x villosae crosses.”Brit. J. exp. Biol.1, 557.Google Scholar
  15. Bridges, C. E. (1921). “Genetical and cytological proof of non-disjunction of the fourth chromosome inDrosophila melanogaster.”Proc. nat. Acad. Sci., Wash.,7, 186–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. —— (1923). “Aberrations in chromosome materials.”Eugen., Genet.and the Family,1, 76–7.Google Scholar
  17. Burnham, G. R. (1934). “Chromosome interchange in maize. Reduction of crossingover and the association of non-homologous parts.”Amer. Nat.68, 91.Google Scholar
  18. Buxton, B. H. &Newton, W. C. E. (1928). “Hybrids ofDigitalis ambigua andDigitalis purpurea. Their fertility and cytology.”J. Genet.19, 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cannos, H. G. (1923). “On the nature of the centrosomal force.”J. Genet.13, 47–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Capinpin, J. M. (1933). “Studies on the genetics and cytology of triploidOenotheras.”Cytologia, Tokyo,4, 355–426.Google Scholar
  21. Catcheside, D. G. (1932). “The chromosomes of a new haploidOenothera.”Cytologia, Tokyo,4, 68–113.Google Scholar
  22. —— (1933). “Chromosome catenation in some F1 Oenothera hybrids.”J. Genet.27, 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. —— (1934). “The chromosomal relationships in the swede and turnip groups ofBrassica.”Ann. Bot., Lond.,48, 601–33.Google Scholar
  24. —— (1935). “X-ray treatment ofOenothera chromosomes.”Genetica,17, 313–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Catcheside, D. G. (1937). “Secondary pairing inBrassica oleracea.”Cytologia, Tokyo. Fujii Jub. Vol. pp. 366–78.Google Scholar
  26. Church, G. L. (1929). “Meiotic phenomena in certain Gramineae. II. Paniceae and Andropogoneae.”Bot. Gaz.88, 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Clauses, J. (1926). “Genetical and cytological investigations inViola tricolor L. andV. arvensis Murr.”Hereditas, Lund,8, 1–156.Google Scholar
  28. Clausen, R. E. (1927). “Interspecific hybridization inNicotiana. VII. The cytology of hybrids of the synthetic species,digulata with its parents,glutinosa andtabacum.”Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot.11, 177–211.Google Scholar
  29. Clausen, R. E. &Goodspeed, T.H. (1925). “Interspecific hybridisation inNicotiana. II. A tetraploidglutinosa-tabacum hybrid, an experimental verification of Winge’s hypothesis.”Genetics,10, 278–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Cleland, R. E. (1922). “The reduction division in the pollen-mother cells ofOenothera franciscana.”Amer. J. Bot.9, 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Colltss. J. L., Hollingshead, L. &Avery. P. (1929). “Interspecific hybrids in Crepis. III. Constant fertile forms containing chromosomes derived from two species.”Genetics,14, 305–20.Google Scholar
  32. Crew, E. A. E. &Koller, P.C. (1936). “Genetical and cytological studies of the intergeneric hybrid ofCairina moschata andAnas platyrrhynca.”Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb.54, 210–41.Google Scholar
  33. Dark, S. O. S. (1936). “Meiosis in diploid and tetraploidPaeonia species.”J. Genet.32, 353–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Darlington, C. D. (1930). “Studies inPrunus. III.”J. Genet.22, 65–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Darlington, C. D. (1937).Recent Advances in Cytology. 2nd. ed.Google Scholar
  36. Darlington, C. D. &Moffett, A. A. (1930). “Primary and secondary chromosome balance inPyrus.”J. Genet.22, 129–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Davie, J. H. (1933). “Cytological studies in the Malvaceae and certain related families.”J. Genet.28, 33–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Derman, H. (1936). “Fertilization in the Baldwin apple—a triplo id variety.”J. Arnold Arbor.17, 106–8.Google Scholar
  39. Detjen, L. R. (dy1927). “Sterility in the common cabbage.”Mem. Hort. Soc. N.Y.3.Google Scholar
  40. Dobzhansky, Th. (1931). “Translocations involving the second and fourth chromosomes ofDrosophila melanogaster.”Genetics,16, 629–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. East, E. M. (1933). “The behaviour of a triploidNicotiana tabacum L.”Amer. J. Bot.20, 269–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Farmer & Snove (1905). “On the structure and development of somatic and heterotypic chromosomes ofTradescantia virginica.”Quart. J. micr. Soc.48, 559–69.Google Scholar
  43. Focke, W. O. (1881).Die Pflaneen-mischlinge. Berlin.Google Scholar
  44. Frandsen, H. N. &Winge, O. (1932). “Brassicanapocampestris, a new constant amphidiploid species hybrid.”Hereditas, Lund,16, 212.Google Scholar
  45. Fruwirth, C. (1924).Handbuch der landwirtschaftlichen Pflanzenziichtung, 2. Berlin.Google Scholar
  46. Fukushima, E. (1929). “Preliminary report onBrassico-Raphanus hybrids.”Proc. imp. Acad. Japan,5, 48–50.Google Scholar
  47. Gairdnek, A. E. &Darlington, G. D. (1931). “Ring formation in diploid and polyploidCampanula persicifolia.”Genetica,13, 113–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gates, E. R. (1908). “The chromosomes ofOenothera.”Science,27, 193–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. —— (1911). “Pollen formation inOenothera gigas.”Ann. Bot., Bond.,25, 909–40.Google Scholar
  50. —— (1912). “Somatic mitosis inOenothera.”Ann. Bot., Lond.,26, 993–1010.Google Scholar
  51. Gates, E. R. (1937). “The discovery of the relation between the nucleolus and the chromosomes.”Gytologia, Tokyo, Fujii Jub. Vol. pp. 977–86.Google Scholar
  52. —— (1938). “The species concept in the light of cytology and genetics.”Amer. Nat. 72, 340–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Gates, R. R. &Catcheside, D. G. (1932). “Garnolysis of various newOenotheras.”J. Genet.26, 143–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Gates, R. R. &Latter, J. (1927). “Observations on the pollen development of two species ofLathraea.”J. Boy. mic. Soc.47, 209–25.Google Scholar
  55. Gelei, J. (1921). “Weitere Studien über die Oogenese desDendrocoelum lacteum. II. Die Lä;ngskonjugation der Chromosomen.”Arch. Zellforsch.16, 88–169.Google Scholar
  56. Goodspeed, T. H. &Clausen, R. E. (1927). “Cytological features of the two F1 hybrids made withNicotiana bigeiovii as a parent.”Univ. Calif. Pvbl. Bot.11, 117–25.Google Scholar
  57. Gowen, J. W. (1928). “Mutation, chromosome non-disjunction and the gene.”Science,68, 211–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Gustafsson, A. (1935). “Studies on the mechanism of parthenogenesis.”Hereditas, Lund,21, 1–112.Google Scholar
  59. Haga, T. (1938). “Relationship of Genom to secondary pairing inBrassica. (A preliminary note,)”Jap. J. Genet.13, 277–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. HâKANSSOn, A. (1936). “Die Reduktionsteilung in einigen Artbastarden vonPisum.”Hereditas, Lund,21, 215–22.Google Scholar
  61. Heilborn, O. (1930). “Temperatur und Chromosomen-Konjugation.”Svensk bot. Tidskr.24, 12–25.Google Scholar
  62. Heitz, E. (1931). “Nukleolen und Chromosomen in der GattungVicia.”Planta,15, 495–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hollingshead, L. (1930). “A cytological study of haploidCrepis capillaris plants, ”Univ. Calif. Publ, agric. Sci.6, 107–34.Google Scholar
  64. Howard, H. W. (1938). “The chromosome number of the swede,Brassica napus L.”J. Genet.35, 383–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Huskins, C. L. &Smith, S. G. (1932). “A cytologioal study of the genusSorghum Pers. The somatio chromosomes.”J. Genet.25, 241–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Husted, L. (1936). “An analysis of chromosome structure and behaviour with the aid of X-ray induced rearrangements.”Genetics,21, 537–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Iyengar, N. K. (1939). “Cytological investigations on the genusCicer.Ann. Bat. Lond. N.S.3, 271–305.Google Scholar
  68. Jörgensen, C. A. (1928). “The experimental formation of heteroploid plants in the genusSolanum.”J. Genet.19, 133–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kagawa, F. (1928). “On the genus crosses betweenTriticum and Aegilops.”Jap. J. Bot.4, 2–23.Google Scholar
  70. Kakizaki, Y. (1930). “Studies on the genetics and physiology of self and cross-incompatibility in the common cabbage (B. oleracea var.capitata L.).”Jap. J. Bot.5, 134–208.Google Scholar
  71. Karpeohenko, G. D. (1922). “The number of chromosomes and the genetic correlation of cultivated Cruciferae.”Bull. Appl. Bot. Pl. Breed.13, 1–14.Google Scholar
  72. —— (1927). “Polyploid hybrids ofRaphanus sativas × Brassica oleracea L.”Bull. Appl. Bot. Pl. Breed. 17, 306–410.Google Scholar
  73. —— (1928). “Polyploid hybrids ofRaphanus sativus × Brassica oleracea L.”Z. indukt. Abstamm. — u. VererbLehrs,48, 1–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. —— (1929). “A contribution to the synthesis of a constant hybrid of three species” (English summary).Proc. U.S.S.R. Congr. Genet. 2, 277–94.Google Scholar
  75. ba]—— (1937a). “Increasing the crossibility of species by doubling its chromosomes.”Bull. Appl. Bot. Genet. Pl. Breed. Ser. ii, pp. 32–6.Google Scholar
  76. ba]—— (1937b). “Experimental production of tetraploid hybridsBrassica oleracea L. ×B. carinata Braun.”Bull. Appl. Bot. Genet. Pl. Breed. Ser. ii, no. 7, pp. 63–68.Google Scholar
  77. ba]—— (1937c). “Reciprocal hybrids betweenRaphano-Brassica and tetraploid cabbage.”Bull. Appl. Bot. Genet. Pl. Breed. Ser. ii, no. 7, pp. 461–3.Google Scholar
  78. Kattermann, G. (1933). “Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Dualität der Bestandteile des Bastardkernes.”Planta,18, 751–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Katayama, Y. (1931). “Variation in the number of bivalent chromosomes in the F1 hybrids betweenTriticum durum andAegilops ventricosa.”Bot. Mag., Tokyo,45, 424–45.Google Scholar
  80. Katayama, Y. (1935). “On a chromosomal variant induced by X-ray treatment inTriticum monococcum.”Proc. imp. Acad. Japan,11, 110–11.Google Scholar
  81. Kihara, H. (1931). “Genomanalyse beiTriticum undAegilops II.Aegilotricum undAegilops cylindrica.”Cytologia, Tokyo,2, 106–56.Google Scholar
  82. Kihara, H. &Lilienfeld, F. (1934). “Kerneinwanderung und Bildung syndiploide, Pollen-Mutter-Zellen bei dem F1 BastardTriticum aegilopides × Aegilops squarrosa.”Jap. J. Genet.10, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Koller, P. C. (1935). “Internal mechanics of chromosomes. IV. Salivary gland chromosomes ofDrosophila.”Proc. roy. Soc. B,118, 371–97.Google Scholar
  84. —— (1936). “Structural hybridity inDrosophila pseudoobscura.”J. Genet. 32, 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Kuwada, Y. (1929). “Chromosome arrangement. I. Model experiments with floating magnets and some theoretical considerations on the problem.”Mem. Coll. Sci. Kyoto, Ser. B,4, 200–64,Google Scholar
  86. Kuwada, Y. &Sughmoto (1928). “On the staining reactions of chromosomes.”Protoplasma,3, 531–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lammerts, W. E. (1929). “Further studies of the cytology of the back cross progenies of thepaniculata-rustica hybrid.”Genetics,14, 286–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. —— (1931). “The amphidiploidrustica x panicvlata hybrid, its origin and cytogenetic behaviour.”Genetics,16, 191–211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. —— (1932). “Ari experimentally produced secondary polyploid in the genusNicotiana”Cytologia, Tokyo,4, 33–45.Google Scholar
  90. —— (1934). “On the nature of chromosome association inNicotiana tabacum haploids.”Cytologia, Tokyo, 6, 38–50. ***Lawrence, W. J. C. (1929). “The genetics and cytology ofDahlia species.”J. Genet. 21, 125–58.Google Scholar
  91. —— (1930). “Incompatibility in polyploids.”Genetica,12, 269–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. —— (1931a). “The genetics and cytology ofDahlia variabilis.”J. Genet. 24, 257–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. —— (1931b). “The secondary association of chromosomes.”Cytologia, Tokyo,2, 352-84. ***Lesley, M. M. (1925). “Chromosomal chimaeras in the tomato.”Amer. Nat. 59, 570–4.Google Scholar
  94. Levan, A. (1935). “ZytologischeStudien an Allium Schoenoprasum.”Hereditas, Lund,22, 1–128.Google Scholar
  95. —— (1936). “Different results in reciprocal crosses between diploid and triploidAllium Stchoenoprasum.”Nature, Lond.,138. 508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Longley, A. E. (1924). “Cytological studies in the genusRubus.”Amer. J. Bot.11, 249–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. —— (1926). “Triploid citrus.”J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 16, 543–46.Google Scholar
  98. Manton, I. (1932). “Introduction to general cytology of the Cruciferae.”Ann. Bot., Lond.,46, 509–56.Google Scholar
  99. Mather, K. (1935). “Chromosome behaviour in a triploid wheat hybrid.”Z. Zellforsch.23, 117–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. —— (1937). “Noteson the cytology of somePrunus species.”Genetica,19, 143–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Mayer, A. M. (1879). “On the morphological laws of configurations formed by magnets floating vertically and subjected to the attraction of superposed magnet.”Philos. Mag.7 (cited from Alain, 1936).Google Scholar
  102. McCllntock, B. (1931). “Cytological observations of deficiencies involving known genes, translocations and inversions inZea Mays.”Res. Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 163.Google Scholar
  103. —— (1933). “The association of non-homologous parts of chromosomes in the midprophase of meiosis inZea Mays.”Z. Zellforsch.19, 191–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. —— (1934). “The relation of a particular chromosomal element to the development of the nucleoli in Zea Mays.”Z. Zellforsch.21, 294–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Mensinkai, S. W. (1939). “Cytological studies inAllium species.”J. Genet.39, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Metz, C. W. (1916). “Chromosome studies inDiptera. II. The paired association of chromosomes in the diptera and its significance.”J. exp. Zool.21, 213–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Meurman, O. (1928). “Cytological studies in genusRibes L.”Hereditis, Lund,11 289–356.Google Scholar
  108. —— (1929). “Primus Lanrocerasus L., a species showing high polyploidy.”J. Genet. 21, 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Mohr, O. L. (1932). “Genetical and cytological proof of somatic elimination of the fourth chromosome inDrosophila melanogasler.”Genetics,17, 60–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Mol, W. E. DE (1927). “Nucleolar number in diploid, triploid and aueuploidHyacinthus.”Cellule,38, 1–64.Google Scholar
  111. Morgan, T. H. &Bridges, C. B. (1919). “The origin of gynandromorphs.”Publ. Carneg. Jnstn, no.278, pp. 1–122.Google Scholar
  112. Morgan, T. H. &Sturtevant, A. H. (1925). “The genetics ofDrosophila.”Bibl. Genet, pp. 1–262.Google Scholar
  113. Morinaga, T. (1928). “Preliminary note on interspecific hybridization inBrassica.”Proc. imp. Acad. Tokyo,4, 620–2.Google Scholar
  114. —— (1929a). “The cytology ofF 1 hybrids ofB. napella and various other species with ten chromosomes.”Oytologia, Tokyo,1, 16–27.Google Scholar
  115. —— (1929b). “The cytology ofF 1 hybridsB. cernua and various other species with ten chromosomes.”Jap. J. Bot. 4, 277–89.Google Scholar
  116. —— (1929c). “The cytology ofF 1 hybrids ofB. cernua xB. napella.”J. Dep. Agric. Kyushu Univ. 2, 199–206.Google Scholar
  117. —— (1931). “The cytology ofF 1 hybrids ofB. carinata and some other species with ten chromosomes.”Oytologia, Tokyo,3. 77–83.Google Scholar
  118. —— (1933). “The cytology ofF 1 hybrids ofB. carinataxB. alboglabra.”Japan. J. Bol. 6, 467–75.Google Scholar
  119. —— (1934). “The cytology ofF 1 hybrids ofB. juncea x B. nigra.”Oytologia, Tokyo,6, 62–7.Google Scholar
  120. Morinaga, T. &Fukushima, E. (1933). “ Karyological studies on a spontaneous haploid mutant ofBrassica napella.”Oytologia, Tokyo,4, 457–60.Google Scholar
  121. Muller, H. J. (1930). “Oenothera-like linkage of chromosomes inDrosophila.”J. Genet.22, 335–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Müntzing, A. (1930). “Outlines to a genetic monograph on the genusGaleopsis.”Hereditas, Lund,13, 185–341.Google Scholar
  123. —— (1932). “Cytogenetic investigations on syntheticGaleopsis Tenuhil.”Hereditas, Lund,16, 106–54.Google Scholar
  124. —— (1933). “Hybrid incompatibility and. the origin of polyploidy.”Hereditas, Lund,18, 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. —— (1934). “Chromosome fragmentation in aGrepis hybrid.”Hereditas, Lund,19, 284–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. —— (1935). “Chromosome behaviour in someNicoliana hybrids.”Hereditas, Lund, 20, 251–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Nagai, K. &Sasaoka, T. (1930). “The number of chromosomes in she cultivatedBrassica.”Jap. J. Genet.5, 151–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Naithant. S. P. (1937). “Chromosome studies inHyacinthus orientalis L, II. Meiotic chromosomes.”Ann. Bot., Lond.,1, 257–75.Google Scholar
  129. Nandi. H. K. (1936). “The chromosome morphology, secondary association and origin of cultivated rice.”J. Gcnet.33, 315–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Navashin, M. (1926). “Variabilität des Zellkerns beiCrepis-Arten in Bezog auf die Artbildung.”.Z. Zellforsch 4, 171–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. —— (1930). “Unbalanced somatic chromosomal variation inCresis.”Univ. Calif. Publ agric. Sci. 6, 95–106.Google Scholar
  132. —— (1934). “Chromosome alterations caused by hybridization and their bearing upon genetic problems.”Cylologia, Tokyo, 5, 169–203.Google Scholar
  133. Newton, W. C. F. (1924). “Studies on somatic chromosomes. I. Pairing and. segmentation inGallonia.”Ann. Bot.., Bond., 38, 197–206.Google Scholar
  134. Newton, W. C. F. &Darlington, C. D. (1929). “Meiosis in polyploids.”J. Genet. 21, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Newton, W. C. F. &Pellew, C. (1920). “Primula kewensis and its derivatives.”J. Genet. 20, 405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Parthasarathy, N. (1938). “Further studies inOryza.”Cylologia, Tokyo, 9, 307–18.Google Scholar
  137. —— (1938a). “Cytogenetics of some X-ray derivatives in rice (Oryza saliva L.).”J. Genet. 37, l-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. —— (1939). “Cytological studies in Phalarideae.”Ann. Bot., Lond., N.S. 3, 43–76.Google Scholar
  139. Pätau, K. (1935). “Chromosomenmorpbologie beiDrosophíla mdanogaster undDrosophila simulans and. ihre genetische Bedeutung.”Naturwissenschaflen.23, 537–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Peto, F. H. (1934). “The cytology of certain intergeneric hybrids betweenFestuca andLolium.”J. Genet. 28, 113–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Poole, C. F. (1931). “The interspecific hybrid,Crepis rubra x foetida and some of its derivatives.”Univ. Calif. Publ, agric. Sci. 6, 189–200.Google Scholar
  142. Ramanujam, S. (1937a). “Cytological behaviour of an anto-triploid in rice (Oryza sativa L.).”J. Genet.35, 183–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. —— (1937b). “Cytogenetical behaviour of an interspecific hybrid in Oryza.”J. Genet. 35, 223–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. —— (1938). “Chromosome studies in the Oryzeae.”Ann. Bot., Bond., N.S. 2, 107–25.Google Scholar
  145. Ramanujam, S. &Parthasarathy, N. (1935). “An. asynaptic mutant in rice.”Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci., Bangalore, 2, 80–7.Google Scholar
  146. Ramiah, K,Parthasarathy, N. &Ramanujam, S. (1934). “Chromosome ring in X-rayed rice. ”Proc. Ass. Bcon. Biol. pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  147. Richardson, M. M. (1936). “Structural hybridity inLilium Martagon Album x L. Hansonii.”J. Genet. 32, 411–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Richharia, R. H. (1937a). “Cytological investigations ofRaphanus sativus x Brassica oleracea and their F1 and F2 hybrids.”J. Genet. 34, 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. —— (1937b). “Cytological investigations of ten. chromosome species of Brassica and theirF 1 hybrids.”J. Genet. 34, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Rosenberg, O. (1917). “Die Reduktionsteilung und ihre Degeneration in Hieracium.”Svensk bot. Tidslcr.11, 145–206.Google Scholar
  151. —— (1927). “Die semiheterotypische Teilung und ihre Bedeutung fiir die Entstehung verdoppelter Chromosomenzahlen.”Hereditas, Lund, 8, 305–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Ruttle, M.- L. (1928). “Chromosome numbers and morphology inNicotiana. II. Diploidy and partial cliploidy in root tips ofTabacum haploids.”Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 11, 213–32.Google Scholar
  153. Sakai, K. I. (1935). “Chromosome studies inOryza sativa.”Jap. J. Genet.11, 145–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Sansome, E. R. (1929). “A chromosome ring inPisum.”Nature, Lond..,124, 578.Google Scholar
  155. —— (1932). “Segmental interchange inPisum.”Cytologia, Tokyo,3, 200–19.Google Scholar
  156. Sapehin, L. A. (1933). “The genes of the reduction division.”Bull. Appi. Bot. Genet. Pl. Breed. Ser. IId. no. 5, pp. 43–75.Google Scholar
  157. Sasaoka, T. (1930). “Karyological observations in different interspecific hybrids ofBrassica.”Jap. J. Genet. 6, 20–32,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Sato, D. (1937). at“Analysis of karyotypes in Aloinae with special reference to SAT- chromosomes,”Cytologia, Fujii Vol., 80–95.Google Scholar
  159. Sax, K. (1930). “Chromosome structure and mechanism of crossing-over.”J. Arnold Arbor.11, 193–220.Google Scholar
  160. —— (1931). “Chromosome ring formation inRhoeo discolor.”Cytologia, Tokyo,2, 1–26.Google Scholar
  161. Sax, K. (1937). “Chromosome inversions inPaeonia suffruticosa.”Cytologia, Tokyo, Fujii Jub. Vol. pp. 108–4.Google Scholar
  162. —— (1937). “Tetraploid cabbage obtained by means of regeneration.”Bull. Appi. Bot. Genet. Pl. Breed. Ser. II, no. 7, pp. 32–6.Google Scholar
  163. Semmens. C. S. (1937). “A substitute for osmio acid.”The Microscope,1, 29–31.Google Scholar
  164. Semmens. C. S. &Bhaduri, P. K. (1939). “The technique for differential staining of nucleoli and chromosomes.”Stain Techn.14, 1–5.Google Scholar
  165. Shimotomai, N. (1925). “A karyological study ofBrassica.”Bot. Mag., Tokyo, 39, 122–7.Google Scholar
  166. Sinskaia, E. (1927). “Geno-systematical investigations of cultivatedBrassica.”Bull. Appl. Bot. Pl. Breed.17, 1–166.Google Scholar
  167. Skovsted, A. (1933). “Cytological studies in Cotton. I. The mitosis and meiosis in diploid and triploid Asiatic cotton.”Ann. Bot., Lond., 47, 227–51.Google Scholar
  168. —— (1937). “Cytological studies in cotton. IV. Chromosome conjugation in interspecific hybrids.”J. Gemi. 34, 97–134.Google Scholar
  169. Smith, S. G. (1935). “Chromosome fragmentation produced by crossing-over in Trillium, erectum L.”J. Genet.30, 227–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Srinath, K. V. (1939). “Morphological and cytological studies in the genusCalceolaria L. IV.”Zeits. f. Abst. v. VererbLehre,77, 104–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Stabler. L. J. (1932). “On the genetic nature of induced mutations in plants.”Proc. 6th Internat. Congr. Genet. pp. 274–94.Google Scholar
  172. Stow, I. (1926). “A. cytological study of pollen-sterility in Solaivam tuberosum.”Proc. imp. Acad. Japan,2, 426–30.Google Scholar
  173. —— (1927). “A cytological study of pollen-sterility inSolanum tuberosum.”Jap. J. Bol. 3, 217–38.Google Scholar
  174. Strasburger (1905). Cited from Gates (1912).Google Scholar
  175. Sturtevant, A. H. (1926). “A cross-over reducer inDrosaphila melanogaster, due to inversion of a section of the third chromosome.”Biol. Zbi.46, 697–702.Google Scholar
  176. Sturtevant, A. H. &Dobzhansky, Th. (1936). “Inversions in the third chromosome of wild races ofDrasophila pseudoobscura and. their use in the history of species.”Proc. nat. Acad. Sci., Wash.,22, 448–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Swezy, O. (1937). “Alterations in somatic chromosomes inCrepis.”Cytologia, Tokyo, Fujii Jub. Vol. pp. 149–55.Google Scholar
  178. Täckholm, G. (1922). “Zytologische Studien über die GattnngRosa.”Acta Hort. berg.7, 97–380.Google Scholar
  179. Tschermak, E. &Bleler, H. (1926). “Über fruchtbare Aegilops-Weizen-Bastarde.”Ber. dtsch. bot. Ges.44, 110–32.Google Scholar
  180. U, N. (1935). “Genome analysis inBrassica with, special reference to the experimental formation of B. napus and peculiar mode of fertilization.”Jap. J. Bot. 7, 388–452.Google Scholar
  181. Upcott, M. (1937). “Spontaneous chromosome changes in pollen grains.”Nature, Lond.,139, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. —— (1937a). “The genetic structure ofTulipa.”J. Genet. 34, 339–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Watkins, A.E. (1932). “Hybrid sterility and incompatibility.”J. Genet. 25, 125–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Whyte, R. O. (1930). “Sterility and floral abnormality in the tetraploidSaxífraga potternensis.”J. Genet.23, 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Winge, O. (1917). “The chromosomes, their numbers and general importance.”C.R. trav. Lab. Oarlsberg,13, 131.Google Scholar
  186. Wright, F.R.E. (1936). “ The Lundy Brassica with some additions.”J. Bot. pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  187. Yarnell, S. H. (1931). “A study of certain polyploid and aneuploid forms ofFragaria, ”Genetics,16, 455–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 1940

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. M. Sikka
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of AgricultureLyallpurIndia

Personalised recommendations