, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 7–16 | Cite as

Muttergleiche Nachkommen nach interspezifischen Kreuzungen bei Blütenpflanzen

  • Alfred Ernst


A concise survey is given of the possibilities of producingmotherlike descendants: the so-called “maternal hybrids”, after interspecific pollinations in flowering plants.

On the basis of his extensive experiments in pollination and interspecific crossings with species of different sections of the genusPrimula, the author believes that he has proved that the motherlike descendants from interspecific crossings inPrimula—as in other genera likeSolanum andDigitalis—are the result neither of amphimictic combination nor of partial aposporic or pseudogamic reproduction. They are rather the result of parthenogenetic embryo formation in developing seeds, the smaller part perhaps of haplo-, the greater and more conspicuous part of diplo-parthenogenesis.

With these unexpected additions, the possibilities of the origin of motherlike descendants from interspecific crossings now include:
  1. (1)

    Mother (or Father-) like descendants fromnormal amphimictic reproduction after crossings of two species from which the one transfers the dominant, the other the recessive alternatives of the distinguishing morphological and physiological characters.

  2. (2)

    Motherlike descendants ofnon-amphimictic origin after interspecific pollination on and withobligate or partial aposporic and pseudogamic species.

  3. (3)

    Motherlike descendants ofnon-amphimictic origin from interspecific crossings of normal sexual species,from seeds with embryos from haplo- or diplo-parthenogenetic development.


With the description of this third category of formation of motherlike descendants, the circle of possibilities seems to be closed. One may now presume that all facts or “maternal hybrids” cited—except those from crossings with definitely proved “experimental errors”—can be explained by one of the possibilities cited above.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    J. G. Koelreuter, Leipzig 1761–1766;Ostwalds Klassiker, Nr. 41 (Verlag W. Engelmann, Leipzig 1893).Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    C. F. Gärtner,Bastaraerzeugung im Pflanzenreich (Verlag K. F. Hering & Co., Stuttgart 1849).Google Scholar
  3. 1.
    M. Ch. Naudin, Ann. Sci. nat. Bot. [4],19, 180–203 (1863).Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    W. O. Focke,Die Pflanzenmischlinge (Verlag Gebr. Bornträger, Berlin 1881).Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    H. de Vries,Mutationstheorie, 2. Bd. (Verlag Veit & Co., Leipzig 1903), S. 20.Google Scholar
  6. 1.
    O. Renner,Handbuch der Vererbungswissenschaft, Bd. II, Lief. 7 (II, A) (Verlag Gebr. Bornträger, Berlin 1929), S. 16.Google Scholar
  7. 2.
    M. A. Millardet, Mém. Soc. Sci. phys. nat. Bordeaux4, 361 (1894).Google Scholar
  8. 3.
    A. Ernst,Bastardierung als Ursache der Apogamie im Pflanzenreich (Verlag G. Fischer, Jena 1918), S. 368;Maternal hybrids 2., Arch. J.-Klaus-Stiftg., Zürich26, 277 (1952).Google Scholar
  9. 1.
    Å. Gustafsson,Apomixis in higher plants, Lunds Univ. Åsskr. N. F.42 und43 (1946/47).Google Scholar
  10. 2.
    G. Mendel, Verh. nat. Verein Brünn8, 26 (1869).Google Scholar
  11. 3.
    C. H. Ostenfeld, Bot. Tidsskr.27, 225 (1906).Google Scholar
  12. 4.
    O. Rosenberg, Bot. Tidsskr.28, 143 (1907).Google Scholar
  13. 1.
    W. O. Focke,Die Pflanzenmischlinge (Verlag Gebr. Bornträger, Berlin 1881), S. 525.Google Scholar
  14. 2.
    B. Lidforss, Z. ind. Abstammungs- u. Vererbungslehre12, 1 (1914).Google Scholar
  15. 3.
    A. Müntzing, Hereditas11, 267 (1928).Google Scholar
  16. 4.
    K. Noack, Z. ind. Abstammungs- u. Vererbungslehre76, 569 (1939).Google Scholar
  17. 5.
    A. undG. Müntzing, Bot. Not. Lund.1941, 237.Google Scholar
  18. 6.
    A. Rutishauser, Ber. schweiz. bot. Ges.53, 5 (1943) und Arch. J.-Klaus-Stiftg.23, 267 (1948).Google Scholar
  19. 1.
    A. F. Blakeslee undJ. Belling, Science55, 646 (1922).Google Scholar
  20. 2.
    J. Belling undA. F. Blakeslee, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. Washington9, 106 (1923).Google Scholar
  21. 3.
    D. H. Valentine, New Phytologist50, 388 (1952).Google Scholar
  22. 1.
    A. Ernst, Arch. J.-Klaus-Stiftg. Zürich26, 284 (1952).Google Scholar
  23. 1.
    B. H. Buxton undC. Darlington, New Phytologist31, 225, (1932).Google Scholar
  24. 2.
    A. undG. Müntzing, Bot. Not. Lund1945, 49.Google Scholar
  25. 3.
    A. Ernst, Arch. J.-Klaus-Stiftg. Zürich19, 310 (1944).Google Scholar
  26. 1.
    A. Ernst in:Festschrift C. Schröter (Verlag Rascher & Co., Zürich 1925). S. 628.Google Scholar
  27. 2.
    C. A. Jørgensen, J. of Genetics19, 133 (1928).Google Scholar
  28. 3.
    G. Haase-Bessell, Z. ind. Abstammungs- u. Vererbungslehre27, 1;42, 1 (1921 und 1926).Google Scholar
  29. 3a.
    N. Yakar, Rev. Fac. Sci. Un. Istanbul9, 106;14, 287 (1945 und 1949).Google Scholar
  30. 4.
    A. Ernst, Arch. J.-Klaus-Stiftg.26, 3 und 187 (1951/52).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1953

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfred Ernst
    • 1
  1. 1.Zürich

Personalised recommendations