1942
DOI: 10.1007/bf01741988
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Zur Genetik und Systematik der Amoena-Gruppe der Gattung Godetia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

1946
1946
1972
1972

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These hybrids had petals with both a basal and central spot like the artificially produced F 1 hybrids and were apparently sterile. Visibly good pollen 2 was 2.8 per cent in the plant examined, which is comparable to that of F 1 hybrids grown in the garden (Hiorth, 1942).…”
Section: Spatial Relationship Breeding Habit and Morphological Diffesupporting
confidence: 49%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…These hybrids had petals with both a basal and central spot like the artificially produced F 1 hybrids and were apparently sterile. Visibly good pollen 2 was 2.8 per cent in the plant examined, which is comparable to that of F 1 hybrids grown in the garden (Hiorth, 1942).…”
Section: Spatial Relationship Breeding Habit and Morphological Diffesupporting
confidence: 49%
“…The distribution of C. amoena extends northward to Vancouver Island. the two species are indistinguishable except by test crosses. The specific status of these two taxa is shown, however, not only by the extensive study of their hybrids by Hiorth (1942Hiorth ( , 1947 and Hakansson 1 (1947), but also by sympatric occurrence in nature. Only one mixed colony has been found (on the road to Meadow Club, 1.5 miles south of Fairfax, Marin County, Raven 11002, 11003, 11004) and at this site C. rubicunda was far more abundant than C. amoena.…”
Section: Spatial Relationship Breeding Habit and Morphological Diffementioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Hiorth ( 1941) suggested on morphological grounds that C. arcuata might be the other parent of C. gracilis. Later, Hakansson (1946) was able to exclude the possibility that C. arcuata might be the second parent of C. gracilis with cytological evidence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%