Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-kl2l2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-01T01:35:31.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An incompatibility system determined by three factors in a species of Psathyrella (Basidiomycetes)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

M. K. Jurand  and
R. F. O. Kemp
M. K. Jurand
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of Edinburgh
R. F. O. Kemp
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of Edinburgh
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Evidence is given for a trifactorial system of incompatibility in an isolate identified as Psathyrella coprobia. The three factors are designated A, B and C. They are thought to be inherited independently. The function of factor A is most probably the same as that of factor A of bifactorial species. Factor B is concerned with the initiation of fruit body primordia, while all three factors must be heterozygous for the occurrence of nucleár migration and the formation of mature fruit bodies.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , August 1973 , pp. 125 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

References

REFERENCES

Aschan, K. (1954). Some factors concerning the incompatibility groups, dikaryotisation and fruit body production in Collybia velutipes. Svensk Botanisk Tidsskrift 48, 603–625.Google Scholar
Bauch, R. (1930). Über multipolare Sexualitat bei Ustilago longissima. Archiv für Protistenkunde 70, 417–466.Google Scholar
Besaude, M. (1918). Recherches sur le cycle évolutif et la sexualité chez Basidiomycètes. Thesis, Nemours.Google Scholar
Blakeslee, A. F. (1904). Sexual reproduction in the Mucorineae. Proceedings of the American Academy of Sciences 40, 206–319.Google Scholar
Burgeff, H. (1920). Sexualitat und Parasitismus bei den Mcorineen. Bericht der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 38, 318–327.Google Scholar
Dickson, H. (1934). Studies on Coprinus sphaeosporus. I. Pairing behaviour and the characteristics of various haploid and diploid strains. Annals of Botany 48, 527–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, H. (1936). Observations of inheritance in Coprinus macrorhizus (Pers.) Rea. Annals of Botany 50, 719–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, I. W. (1950). Unilateral nuclear migration and the interactions of haploid mycelia in the fungus Cyathus stercoreus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. 36, 306–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, M. (1952). Species concept in the genus Coprinus. A study of the significance of intersterility. Dansk Botanisk Arkiv. 14, 1–164.Google Scholar
Papazian, H. P. (1950). Physiology of the incompatibility factors in Schizophyllum commune. Botanical Gazette 112, 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quintanilha, A. (1939). Etude génétique du phénomène de Buller. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 13, 425–486.Google Scholar
Quintanilha, A. & Pinto-Lopes, J. (1950). Aperçu sur l'état actuel de nos connaissances concernant la conduite sexuelle et la systématique des Hymenomycètes. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 24, 115–290.Google Scholar
Raper, J. R. (1966). Genetics of Sexuality of Higher Fungi. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
Routien, J. B. (1940). Cultural and genetical studies of certain Agarics. Mycologia 32, 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takemaru, T. (1957). Genetics of Collybia velutipies. IV. Interpolarity occurring in the strain NL-55. Botanical Magazine 70, 238–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar