Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T23:17:23.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changing the relative size of the body parts of Drosophila by selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Forbes W. Robertson
Forbes W. Robertson
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council Unit of Animal Genetics, Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh 9
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

1. Mass selection for both high- and low-ratio of wing to thorax length has been carried out on a population of Drosophila melanogaster. The response to selection was immediate and sustained. When the experiment was stopped after ten generations, the wing area in the two selected lines differed by about 30%. The heritability estimate worked out at 0·56 ± 0·08.

2. Thorax length remained comparatively unchanged during selection nor was there any change in wing shape. There was some evidence of assymetry of response since there was a relatively greater change in favour of smaller rather than larger size.

3. The tibia length of all pairs of legs showed correlated changes so that the lines with larger or smaller wing sizes had also larger and smaller legs.

4. The normal allometric relation between wing and thorax length, associated with variation in body-size, apparently also changed, so that for a given change in thorax length there was a greater or smaller proportional change in wing size in the high- or low-ratio lines.

5. The changes in relative wing size are due to changes in cell number.

6. It is suggested that the genetic changes due to selection act in the early pupal period when the imaginal discs are undergoing differentiation and proliferation to form imaginal hypoderm and appendages.

7. Tests of genetic behaviour failed to show any departure from additivity in crosses which involved the unselected population and the high-ratio line. But highly significant departures existed in the cross to the low-ratio line. Relatively smaller wing size behaves as largely recessive. Stability of the normal wing/thorax ratio involves dominance and probably also epistasis. The genetic properties of the relative size of the appendage are apparently similar to those which characterize body-size as a whole.

8. It is suggested that selection provides a valuable tool for studying the constancy or lability of the growth patterns which determine morphology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , July 1962 , pp. 169 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

References

REFERENCES

Alpatov, W. W. (1930). Phenotypical variation in body and cell size of Drosophila melanogaster. Biol. Bull., Wood's Hole, 58, 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodenstein, D. (1950). The postembryonic development of Drosophila. In Biology of Drosophila, ed. Demerec, M.. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Carson, H. L. & Stalker, H. D. (1949). Seasonal variation in the morphology of Drosophila rebusta (Sturtevant). Evolution, 3, 330–343.Google Scholar
Clark, F. H. (1941). Correlation and body proportion in mature mice of the genus Peromyscus. Genetics, 26, 283–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cock, A. (1961). Genetic and ontogenetic variation in the growth form of the fowl. Abstr. Heredity (in press).Google Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. (1950). The accuracy of growth curves. Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 137, 488–489.Google ScholarPubMed
Reeve, E. C. R. (1950). Genetical aspects of size allometry. Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 137, 515–518.Google ScholarPubMed
Reeve, E. C. R. & Robertson, F. W. (1953). Studies in quantitative inheritance. II. Analysis of a strain of Drosophila melanogaster selected for long wings. J. Genet. 51, 276–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, F. W. (1955). Selection response and the properties of genetic variation. Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 20, 166–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, F. W. (1960). Studies in quantitative inheritance. XII. Cell size and number in relation to genetic and environmental variation of body size in Drosophila. Genetics, 44, 869–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, F. W. (1961). Ecological genetics of growth. IV. The influence of larval nutrition on the manifestation of dominance. Genet. Res. 2, 346–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, F. W. & Reeve, E. C. R. (1952). Studies in quantitative inheritance. I. The effects of selection of wing and thorax length in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Genet. 50, 414–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, F. W. & Reeve, E. C. R. (1953). Studies in quantitative inheritance. IV. The effects of substituting chromosomes from selected strains in different genetic backgrounds in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Genet. 51, 586–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. (1959). A morphometric analysis of strains Drosphila melanogaster differing in DDT-resistance. J. Kans. ent. Soc. 32 (4), 155–172.Google Scholar
Stalker, H. D. & Carson, H. L. (1947). Morphological variation in natural populations of Drosophila robusta. Evolution, 1, 237–248.Google Scholar