A Glossary of Genetics and Cytogenetics

Rieger, R.; Michaelis, A.; Green, Melvin M.

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-01012-9

Cited by 151 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In its original definition, androgenesis referred to when a sperm or pollen nucleus fuses with an egg nucleus, but the nuclear genome of the mother is eliminated by the paternal genome (figure 1) [1]. Alternative mechanisms of androgenesis are, however, recognized [2], particularly the development of an embryo from a male gamete in an egg that lacks a maternal nucleus (see §2; figure 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Androgenesis: where males hijack eggs to clone themselves

Schwander

Oldroyd

2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Androgenesis: where males hijack eggs to clone themselves

Schwander

Oldroyd

2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, soon thereafter, it became obvious that "unit characters" were a delusion; hence, the introduction by Plate [1910] of the concept of pleiotropy: "Production by one mutant gene of apparently unrelated multiple (or manifold) effects at the phenotypic level (polypheny)" [Rieger et al, 1968]. In Plate's own words"I designate as pleiotropic an entity if several traits depend on it … always occur together, thus appear correlatively united."…”

Section: Syndrome Qua Pleiotropymentioning

confidence: 99%

Historical perspective on developmental concepts and terminology

Opitz

Neri

2013

American J of Med Genetics Pt A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In their ontogeny and phylogeny all living beings are historical entities. The revolution in biology of the 18th and 19th centuries that did away with the scala naturae according to which we humans, the acme of creation, “made a little lower than the angels,” also led to the gradual realization that a humble one‐celled protist (“protoctist”), such as Entamoeba histolytica of ill repute [Margulis and Chapman, ] has the same 4‐billion‐year phylogeny as that of Homo sapiens, vivid testimony to common ancestry and the relatedness of all living beings on earth. The group of medical geneticists who assembled at the NIH, Bethesda, MD this January to address terms pertaining to human ontogeny, did so in the long tradition of Sydenham, Linnaeus, Meckel, Geoffroy St‐Hilaire père et fils, Wilhelm His and so many others before who had over the previous two centuries wrestled as earnestly as they could with concepts of “classification” and nomenclature of developmental anomalies. The prior massive need for classification per se in medical morphology has diminished over the years in favor of ever more sophisticated understanding of pathogenesis and cause through experimental biology and genetics; however, in the winter of 2013 it was still found prudent to respect terminological precedent on general terms while recognizing recent advances in developmental pathology requiring clarification and definition of special terms. Efforts along similar lines instigated by the German Society of Anatomists at their first meeting in Leipzig in 1887 culminated, after intense years of work by hundreds of experts and consultants under the goad of Wilhelm His, in the Basel Nomina Anatomica [BNA, His (1895)]. His, himself, stated prefatorily that the BNA had no legislative weight, only an evanescent consensus of many to be amended in the future as needed and indicated. Without hubris, no one before or after will do the same. The more substantial the consensus the more permanent the structure. After some 120 years the BNA is alive and flourishing. Now retitled Terminologia Anatomica, it has been amended and added to many times, is still in Latin but now with synonyms in English, the new lingua franca of science, for every anatomical, histological and embryological term. May our successors be equally effective. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

“…According to RIEGER et al (1968) accessory chromosomes in higher plants can briefly be in higher plants and mosses characterized as having the following properties, though some of them may be missing in special cases.…”

Section: Comparison Between Accessory Chromosomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accessory chromosomes in some mosses

Wigh

2009

Hereditas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accessory chromosomes are reported in four mosses belonging to the family Brachytheciaceae. In Brachythecium glareosum the basic chromosome complement is n = 9. In some gatherings two and in others three accessory chromosomes were observed. In B. velutinum the basic number is n = 10, but n = 1 0 + 2 accessory chromosomes were observed in one population. Two species of Homalothecium, H . lutescens and H. sericeum, have the basic chromosome number n = 10 in common. In some gatherings of both species one accessory chromosome was observed and in one population of H . sericeum three accessory chromosomes were found. The properties of the accessory chromosomes in mitosis, as well as the terms accessory chromosomes and m-chromosomes and the interpretation of the interphase nucleus in mosses are discussed. References are made to the behavior of the accessory chromosomes in meiosis, and also previously published chromosome complements for some species of Brachythecium and Homalothecium are interpreted on the basis of the results reported in this paper.In the interpretation of the chromosome complements of mosses accessory chromosomes and m-chromosomes have caused many problems, due mainly to two reasons. First, the terms accessory chromosomes and m-chromosomes have been used in different ways, and secondly, very often only one population of a species has been cytologically studied so that the basic chromosome complement has been misinterpreted when accessory chromosomes were present. Thus, the basic number is often lower than reported. On the other hand in some species chromosomes reported as accessories are not, in fact, to be regarded as true accessory chromosomes, but as regular members of the chromosome complement. Thus, these species have a higher basic number than reported.It is necessary to discuss the term m-chromosome more thoroughly. The genus Sphagnum is not included in this discussion as the cytological conditions in this genus are rather unique. The reader is referred to BRYAN (1955) for further information about the behavior of the m-chromosomes in Sphagnum. The term m-chromosome has been used in three different ways.

show abstract

A Glossary of Genetics and Cytogenetics

Cited by 151 publications

References 0 publications

Androgenesis: where males hijack eggs to clone themselves

Androgenesis: where males hijack eggs to clone themselves

Historical perspective on developmental concepts and terminology

Accessory chromosomes in some mosses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About