Quantitative Genetically Nonequivalent Reciprocal Crosses in Cultivated Plants

  • Rustem Aksel
Part of the Basic Life Sciences book series (BLSC, volume 8)


Quantitative expressions of character difference between reciprocal crosses have been studied by different researchers in a number of plant species, such as Epilobium, Zea mays, Oryza sativa, Hordeum sativum, Triticum aestivum, Trifolium hybridum, Linum usitatissimum, Nicotiana rustica, and others. In all cases it was found that the nonequivalence of reciprocal crosses manifested itself beginning with the F1 generation, with the exception of some flax crosses in which reciprocals differed beginning with the F2 generation. The nonequivalence of reciprocal crosses usually manifested itself in the inequality of their F1 and/or F2 or backcross means; however, there were instances in which their means were the same but the variances were different. Both matroclinous and patroclinous inheritances were reported in plants. Because of the causal complexity of reciprocal differences the experimental results often lack a simple explanation.


Cytoplasmic Male Sterility Seed Weight Common Wheat Reciprocal Cross Linum Usitatissimum 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aksel, R. (1974). Analysis of means in the case of non-equivalent reciprocal crosses in autogamous plants. Theoret. Appt Genet. 45: 96–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateson, W. and Gairdner, A. E. (1921). Male sterility in flax, subject to two types of segregation. J. Genet. 11: 269–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhat, B. K. and Dhavan, N. L. (1970). Threshold concentration of plasmonsensitive polygenes in the expression of quantitative characters of maize. Theoret. Appt Genet. 40: 347–350.Google Scholar
  4. Bhat, B. K. and Dhavan, N. L. (1971). The role of cytoplasm in the manifestation of quantitative characters of maize. Genetica 42: 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandraratna, M. F. and Sakai, K.-I. (1960). A biometrical analysis of matroclinous inheritance of grain weight in rice. Heredity 14: 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Correns, I. C. (1901). Die Ergebnisse der neuesten Bastardforschungen für die Vererbungslehre. Ber. Deut. Bot. Ges. XIX: 71–94.Google Scholar
  7. Durrant, A. 1962a. The environmental induction of heritable change in Linum. Heredity 17: 27–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Durrant, A. 1962b. Induction, reversion and epitrophism of flax genotrophs. Nature 196: 1302–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Durrant, A. (1965). Analysis of reciprocal differences in diallel crosses. Heredity 20: 573–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Durrant, A. and Timmis, J. N. (1973). Genetic control of environmentally induced changes in Linum. Heredity 30: 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Durrant, A. and Tyson, H. (1964). A diallel cross of genotypes and genotrophs of Linum. Heredity 19: 207–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duvick, D. N (1959). The use of cytoplasmic male sterility in hybrid production. Econ. Bot. 13: 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duvick, D. N. (1966). Influence of morphology and sterility on breeding methodology. In Plant Breeding. Univ. of Iowa Press, Ames, Ia.Google Scholar
  14. Edwardson, J. R. (1956). Cytoplasmic male sterility. Bot. Rev. 22: 696–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans, G. M. (1968). Nuclear changes in flax. Heredity 23: 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fleming, A. A., Kozelnicky, G. M. and Brown, E. B. (1960). Cytoplasmic effects on agronomic characters in a double-cross maize hybrid. Agron. J. 52: 112–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gairdner, A. E. (1929). Male sterility in flax. II. A case of reciprocal crosses differing in F2. J. Genet. 21: 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garwood, D. L., Weber, E. J., Lambert, R. J. and Alexander, D. E. ( 1970. Effect of different cytoplasms on oil, fatty acids, plant height and ear height in maize (Zea mays L.). Crop Sci. 10: 39–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hadjinov, M. I. (1968). Genetic foundations of cytoplasmic male sterility (in Russian). In Heterosis: Theory and practice. L., “Kolos” (cited after Krupnov, 1971). Genetika 7: 159–174.Google Scholar
  20. Hoen, K. and Andrew, R. H. (1959). Performance of corn hybrids with various ratios of flint-dent germ plasm. Agron. J. 51: 451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jinks, J. L. (1956). The FZ and backcross generations from a set of diallel crosses. Heredity 10: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jinks, J. L., Perkins, J. M. and Gregory, S. R. (1972). The analysis and interpretation of differences between reciprocal crosses of Nicotiana rustica varieties. Heredity 28: 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krupnov, V. A (1971). Sources of cytoplasmic male sterility in plants (in Russian with English summary). Genetika 7: 159–174.Google Scholar
  24. Lyashchenko, I. F. (1971). Genetic peculiarities of alternative wheats (in Russian). Genetika 7: 20–29.Google Scholar
  25. Mather, K. and Jinks, J. L. (1971). Biometrical Genetics. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
  26. Nečas, J. (1961). Inheritance of kernel size in barley (Czechoslovakian, with summary in Russian and German). Sbor. CSAZ V, Rostl. Vyroba 7: 1607–1634.Google Scholar
  27. Nečas, J. (1962). Inheritance of spike length in barley (Czechoslovakian, with summary in Russian and English). Biologia 1 7: 401–414.Google Scholar
  28. Nečas, J. (1963). Inheritance of spike length in barley (Czechoslovakian, with summary in Russian and English). Biologia 18: 195–209.Google Scholar
  29. Nečas, J. (1966). Unequality of reciprocal crosses of barley (English, with summary in German). Z. Planz. 55: 260–275.Google Scholar
  30. Palilova, A. N. (1969). Cytoplasmic male sterility in plants. Minsk, “Nauka i tekhnika” (cited after Krupnov, 1971). Genetika 7: 159–174.Google Scholar
  31. Richey, F. D. (1920). The inequality in reciprocal corn crosses. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 12: 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sakai, K.-I., Iyama, S.-Y. and Narise, T. (1961). Biometrical approach to cytoplasmic inheritance in autogamous plants. Bull. Int. Stat. Inst. 38: 249–257.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, W. E. and Aksel, R. (1974). Genetic analysis of seed-weight in reciprocal crosses of flax (Linum usitatissimum L.). Theoret. Appl. Genet. 45: 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, W. E. and Fitzsimmons, J. E. (1964). Maternal inheritance of seed weight in flax. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 6: 244.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, W. E. and Fitzsimmons, J. E. (1965). Maternal inheritance of seed weight in flax. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 7: 658–662.Google Scholar
  36. Soomro, B. A. (1974). A biometrical-genetic analysis of some quantitative characters in a five-parent diallel cross of common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton.Google Scholar
  37. Tyson, H. (1973). Cytoplasmic effect on plant weight in crosses between flax genotypes and genotrophs. Heredity 30: 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yates, F. (1947). Analysis of data from all possible reciprocal crosses between a set of parental lines. Heredity 1: 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rustem Aksel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeneticsUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations