Skip to main content
Log in

Differences between Self-Incompatibility and Self-Sterility

  • Letter
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

THE term ‘self-sterile’ is used for describing plants which fail to set self-seed when they are grown in isolation or when they are self-pollinated. Silow1 reviewed the early usage of this term and proposed the term ‘voluntarily self-sterile’ to describe Lotus plants that fail to set seed when isolated from insects and ‘artificially self-sterile’ when they still fail to set self-seed following artificial self-pollination. He observed that several Lotus species in isolation set more self-seed following artificial self-pollination than the same plants without artificial self-pollination. This difference can be accounted for by the presence of a stigmatic membrane which prevents germination and growth of any pollen. This membrane is ruptured by artificial self-pollination or by insect pollination of the flower, after which pollen can germinate and grow. The presence of a stigmatic membrane was observed by Elliott2 in L. tenuis and by Giles3 in L. corniculatus. Giles3 was unable to observe any difference in germination between self- and cross-pollen once the membrane ruptured. The presence of a similar membrane was observed by me4 in several other Lotus species. This membrane can account for the observed voluntary self-sterility and for differences between voluntary and artificial self-sterility, but it does not account for artificial self-sterility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Silow, R. A., Welsh Plant Breeding Sta. Bull. (Ser. H), 12, 234 (1931).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Elliott, F. C., “Plant Breeding and Cytogenetics” (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1958).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Giles, W. L., Ph.D. thesis (Univ. of Missouri, 1949).

  4. Bubar, J. S., Can. J. Bot., 36, 65 (1958).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. East, E. M., and Manglesdorf, A. J., Proc. U.S. Nat. Acad. Sci., 11, 166 (1925).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Brink, R. A., and Cooper, D. C., Science, 90, 545 (1939).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pandey, K. K., Amer. J. Bot., 44, 879 (1957).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dawson, C. D. R., J. Genet., 42, 49 (1941).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bateman, A. J., Heredity, 10, 257 (1956).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bolton, J. L., Sci. Agric., 28, 97 (1948).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

BUBAR, J. Differences between Self-Incompatibility and Self-Sterility. Nature 183, 411–412 (1959). https://doi.org/10.1038/183411b0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/183411b0

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Navigation