Abstract
The crossability ofP. coccineus (self-incompatible) andP. vulgaris (self-compatible) was much higher whenvulgaris was used as the female parent. Reciprocal difference in crossability was due to the retarded development of embryo and endosperm tissue during the immediate post-fertilization period in the crossP. coccineus ⧫×P. vulgaris μ. Backcrossing the reciprocal F1 hybrids to the maternal species was more successful than to the paternal species.
Two varieties ofP. vulgaris differed significantly in their ability to hybridize with six genotypes ofP. coccineus; this difference was shown to be genetical.
The F1 hybrids were readily distinguishable from the parent species at the seedling stage and could be classified into two distinct morphological types; one group showed and abnormal wrinkling of the leaves. The frequency of the abnormal progeny in the F1 generation could be satisfactorily explained on the basis of either “allelic” or “genic” interaction. The importance of this genetic system in the divergence of the two species is discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bemis, W. P. &N. Kedar (1961). Inheritance of morphological abnormalities in seedlings of two species ofPhaseolus.J. Hered. 52: 171–178.
Brink, R. A. &D. C. Cooper (1947). The endosperm in seed development.Bot. Rev. 13: 423–541.
Buishand, Tj. (1956). The crossing of beans (Phaseolus spp.)Euphytica 5: 41–50.
Darlington, C. D. &A. Wylie (1955). Chromosome Atlas of Flowering Plants. George Allen and Unwin, London.
Dobzhansky, Th. (1937). Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia University Press, New York.
Geerts, S. J. (1949). Oriënterend onderzoek over de reuzen en dwergplanten in F1 en volgende generaties vanPhaseolus vulgaris L.×Phaseolus multiflorus Lam. Proefschrift Groningen, 1–138.
Hutchinson, J. B. (1932). Crumpled, a new dominant in Asiatic cottons produced by complementary factors.J. Genet. 25: 281–291.
Johansen, D. A. (1940). Plant Microtechnique. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Lamprecht, H. (1941). Die Artgrenze zwischenPhaseolus vulgaris L. undmultiflorus Lam.Hereditas 27:51–175.
Lamprecht, H. (1948). Zur Lösung des Artproblems. Neue und bisher bekannte Ergebnisse der KreuzungPhaseolus vulgaris L. xcoccineus L. und reziprok.Agri. Hort. Genetica 6: 87–141.
Lawrence, W. J. C. (1947). Studies onStreptocarpus. II. Complementary sublethal genes.J. Genet. 48: 16–30.
Lewis, D. (1959). Sexual incompatibility.Sci. Progr. 172:593–605.
Martin, G. (1957). Hacia el esclarecimiento del por que de una polimorfa generaction F1.Genet. Iber. 9:225–282.
Mather, K. (1943). Specific differences inPetunia. I. Incompatibility.J. Genet. 45: 215–235.
Mather, K. &P. M. J. Edwardes (1943). Specific differences inPetunia. III. Flower colour and genetic isolation.J. Genet. 45:243–260.
Reusch, J. D. H. (1959). The nature of genetic differentiation betweenLolium perenne andFestuca pratensis.S. Afr. J. agric. Sci. 2:271–283.
Rudorf, W. (1954). Neue Beobachtungen and Bastarden vonPhaseolus vulgaris x Ph. multiflorus undPh. multiflorus x Ph. vulgaris. Proc. Ninth Int. Congr. Genetics, 844–845.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thomas, H. Investigations into the inter-relationships ofPhaseolus vulgaris L. andP. Coccineus LAM. Genetica 35, 59–74 (1964). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01804875
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01804875