Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T12:29:10.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XIX.—“ Spheroidal”: A Mutant in Drosophila funebris affecting Egg Size and Shape, and Fecundity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2014

F. A. E. Crew  and
Charlotte Auerbach
F. A. E. Crew
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh
Charlotte Auerbach
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh
Get access

Extract

In the course of a study of fecundity in Drosophila funebris (Donald and Lamy, 1937), it was noted that a particular female was laying very few eggs, and that the shape of these was peculiar. Among her descendants other females of similarly low fecundity and laying eggs of the same abnormal shape were encountered, and it was assumed therefore that a mutation affecting fecundity and egg shape had been recognised. In this paper evidence concerning the type of heredity of these characteristics is presented, and a statistical description of the morphological aspect of the new mutation, the size and shape of the egg, as compared with those of the normal D. funebris egg, is given.

Type
Proceedings
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 57 , 1938 , pp. 255 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1938

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References to Literature

Bennion, N. L., and Warren, D. C., 1933. “Some Factors affecting Egg Size in the Domestic Fowl,” Poult. Sci., vol. xii, pp. 362–367.Google Scholar
Curtis, M. R., 1914. “A Biometrical Study of Egg Production in the Domestic Fowl. IV. Factors influencing the Size, Shape and Physical Constitution of Eggs,” Arch. EntwMech. Org., vol. xxxix, pp. 217–327.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P., and Lamy, R., 1938. “Ovarian Rhythm in Drosophila,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. lvii, pp. 78–96.Google Scholar
Fabergé, A. C., 1936. “The Physiological Consequences of Polyploidy. II. The Effect of Polyploidy on Variability in the Tomato,” Journ. Genet., vol. xxxiii, pp. 383–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gause, G. F., 1931. “Über den Einfluss verkürzter larvaler Ernährungszeit auf die Eiergrösse von Drosophila funebris und Drosophila melanogaster,” Biol. Zbl., vol. li, pp. 209–218.Google Scholar
Grossfeld, J., 1933. “Gestalt und Volumen von Hühnereiern,” Arch. Geflügelk., vol. vii, pp. 369–374.Google Scholar
Imai, T., 1935. “The Influence of Temperature on Egg Size and Variation in Drosophila melanogaster,” Arch. EntwMech. Org., vol. cxxxii, pp. 206–219.Google Scholar
Marble, D. R., 1930. “The Non-linear Relationship of Egg Weight and Annual Production,” Poult. Sci., vol. ix, pp. 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, R., and Curtis, M. R., 1916. “Dwarf Eggs of the Domestic Fowl,” Report Maine Agric. Exp. Stn., pp. 289–328.Google Scholar
Warren, D. C., 1924. “Inheritance of Egg Size in Drosophila melanogaster,” Genetics, vol. ix, pp. 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar