CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 820

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Transgressive segregation, adaptation and speciation

Rieseberg, Loren H, Archer, Margaret A, Wayne, Robert K·1999·Heredity
DOI 10.1038/sj.hdy.6886170
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.hdy.6886170

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Transgressive traits in hybrids are primarily due to the merger of parental genomes comprised of complementary genes with additive effects.

    “Transgressive traits in hybrids are primarily due to the merger of parental genomes comprised of complementary genes with additive effects (Rieseberg et al. 1999, 2003).”

    From Morphological Variation in Wild Marmosets (Callithrix penicillata and C. geoffroyi) and Their Hybrids (2014) · cites this paper as Rieseberg et al. 1999

  • Morphometric variation for the studied traits is consistent with Rieseberg's complementary allele model.

    “suggesting that morphometric variation for the studied traits is consistent with Rieseberg's complementary allele model.”

    From Morphological Variation in Wild Marmosets (Callithrix penicillata and C. geoffroyi) and Their Hybrids (2014) · cites this paper as Rieseberg et al. 1999

  • Approximately one-third of the traits examined (200/650 animal traits) are transgressive.

    “Transgressive segregation is common (even ubiquitous) in hybridizing plants, but less common in animals; nonetheless, work by Rieseberg et al. (1999) indicated that 78 % (45/58) of examined animal studies report transgressive segregation, while approximately one-third of the traits examined (200/650 animal traits) are transgressive.”

    From Morphological Variation in Wild Marmosets (Callithrix penicillata and C. geoffroyi) and Their Hybrids (2014) · cites this paper as Rieseberg et al. 1999

  • Transgressive segregation is common in hybridizing plants but less common in animals.

    “Transgressive segregation is common (even ubiquitous) in hybridizing plants, but less common in animals; nonetheless, work by Rieseberg et al. (1999) indicated that 78 % (45/58) of examined animal studies report transgressive segregation, while approximately one-third of the traits examined (200/650 animal traits) are transgressive.”

    From Morphological Variation in Wild Marmosets (Callithrix penicillata and C. geoffroyi) and Their Hybrids (2014) · cites this paper as Rieseberg et al. 1999

  • 78% (45/58) of examined animal studies report transgressive segregation.

    “Transgressive segregation is common (even ubiquitous) in hybridizing plants, but less common in animals; nonetheless, work by Rieseberg et al. (1999) indicated that 78 % (45/58) of examined animal studies report transgressive segregation, while approximately one-third of the traits examined (200/650 animal traits) are transgressive.”

    From Morphological Variation in Wild Marmosets (Callithrix penicillata and C. geoffroyi) and Their Hybrids (2014) · cites this paper as Rieseberg et al. 1999

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Abbott, R. J. (1992). Plant invasions, interspecific hybridization and the evolution of new plant taxa. Trends Ecol Evol. 7: 401–404. · DOI
  2. Arnold, M. L. (1997). Natural Hybridization and Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford. · DOI
  3. Barton, N. H. and Hewitt, G. M. (1985). Analysis of hybrid zones. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 16: 113–148. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bullini, L. (1994). Origin and evolution of animal hybrid species. Trends Ecol Evol. 9: 422–426. · DOI
  5. Cosse, A. A., Campbell, M. G., Glover, T. J., Linn, C. E. J. R., Todd, J. L., Baker, T. C. and Roelofs, W. L. (1995). Pheromone behavioral responses in unusual male European corn borer hybrid progeny not correlated to electrophysiological phenotypes of their pheromone-specific antennal neurons. Experientia. 51: 809–816. · DOI
  6. Cox, T. S. and Frey, K. J. (1985). Complementary genes for high groat-protein percentage from Avena sativa and Avena sterilis. Crop Sci. 25: 106–109. · DOI
  7. Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London.
  8. de Vicente, M. C. and Tanksley, S. D. (1993). QTL analysis of transgressive segregation in an interspecific tomato cross. Genetics. 134: 585–596. · DOI
  9. Dowling, T. E. and Secor, C. L. (1997). The role of hybridization and introgression in the diversification of animals. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 28: 593–620. · DOI
  10. Engels, W. R. (1983). The P family of transposable elements in Drosophila. Ann Rev Genet. 17: 315–344. · DOI
  11. Fabrizius, M. A., Busch, R. H., Khan, K. and Huckle, L. (1998). Genetic diversity and heterosis of spring wheat crosses. Crop Sci. 38: 1108–1112. · DOI
  12. Grant, V. (1975). Genetics of Flowering Plants. Columbia University Press, New York
  13. Grant, V. (1981). Plant Speciation. Columbia University Press, New York · DOI
  14. Grant, B. R. and Grant, P. R. (1998). Hybridization and speciation in Darwin’s finches: The role of sexual imprinting on a culturally transmitted trait. In: Howard, D. J. and Berlocher, S. H. (eds) Endless Forms: Species and Speciation, pp. 404–424. Oxford University Press, New York.
  15. Harrison, R. G. (1986). Pattern and process in a narrow hybrid zone. Heredity. 56: 337–349. · DOI
  16. Kim, S. -C. and Rieseberg, L. H. (1999). Genetic architecture of species differences in annual sunflowers: Implications for adaptive trait introgression. Genetics. in press.. · DOI
  17. Lee, T. S. and Shaner, G. (1985). Transgressive segregation of length of latent period in crosses between slow leaf-rusting wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars. Phytopathology. 75: 643–647. · DOI
  18. Lewontin, R. C. and Birch, L. C. (1966). Hybridization as a source of variation for adaptation to new environments. Evolution. 20: 315–336. · DOI
  19. Mansur, L. M., Lark, K. G., Kross, H. and Oliveira, A. (1993). Interval mapping of quantitative trait loci for reproductive, morphological, and seed traits of soybean (Glycine max L.). Theor Appl Genet. 86: 907–913. · DOI
  20. Mccarthy, E. M., Asmussen, M. A. and Anderson, W. W. (1995). A theoretical assessment of recombinational speciation. Heredity. 74: 502–509. · DOI
  21. Moll, R. H., Longquist, J. H., Fortuno, J. V. and Johnson, E. C. (1965). The relationship of heterosis and genetic divergence in maize. Genetics. 52: 139–144. · DOI
  22. Monforte, A. J., Asins, M. J. and Carbonell, E. A. (1997). Salt tolerance in Lycopersicon species. V. Does genetic variability at quantitative trait loci affect their analysis?. Theor Appl Genet. 95: 284–293. · DOI
  23. Moore, W. S. (1977). An evaluation of narrow hybrid zones in vertebrates. Q Rev Biol. 52: 263–267. · DOI
  24. Orr, H. A. (1998). Testing natural selection vs. genetic drift in phenotypic evolution using quantitative trait locus data. Genetics. 149: 2099–2014. · DOI
  25. Paterson, A. H., Damon, S., Hewitt, J. D., Zamir, D., Rabinowitch, H. D., Lincoln, S. E., Lander, E. S. and Tanksley, S. D. (1991). Mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits in tomato: comparison across species, generations and environments. Genetics. 127: 181–197. · DOI
  26. Rick, C. M. and Smith, P. G. (1953). Novel variation in tomato species hybrids. Am Nat. 87: 359–375. · DOI
  27. Rieseberg, L. H. (1997). Hybrid origins of plant species. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 28: 359–389. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Rieseberg, L. H. and Ellstrand, N. C. (1993). What can morphological and molecular markers tell us about plant hybridization?. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 12: 213–241.
  29. Stebbins, G. L. (1959). The role of hybridization in evolution. Proc Am Phil Soc. 103: 231–251.
  30. Templeton, A. R. (1981). Mechanisms of speciation–a population genetic approach. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 12: 23–48. · DOI
  31. Theron, A. (1989). Hybrids between Schistosoma mansoni and Schistosoma rodhaini: Characterization by cercarial emergence rhythms. Parasitology. 99: 225–228. · DOI
  32. True, J. R., Liu, J., Stam, L. F., Zeng, Z. -B. and Laurie, C. C. (1997). Quantitative genetic analysis of divergence in male secondary sexual traits between Drosophila simulans and. D Mauritiana Evolution. 51: 816–832. · DOI
  33. Vega, U. and Frey, K. J. (1980). Transgressive segregation in inter- and intraspecific crosses of barley. Euphytica. 29: 585–694. · DOI
  34. Voigt, P. W. and Tischler, C. R. (1994). Leaf characteristic variation in hybrid lovegrass populations. Crop Sci. 34: 679–684. · DOI
  35. Weller, J. I., Soller, M. and Bordy, T. (1988). Linkage analysis of quantitative traits in an interspecific cross of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum (Lycopersicon pimpinellifolium) by means of genetic markers. Genetics. 118: 329–339. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rieseberg, L. H., Archer, M. A., & Wayne, R. K.
Venue
Heredity
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1999-10
Volume
83
Issue
4
Pages
363-372
ISSN
  • 0018-067X
  • 1365-2540
DOI
10.1038/sj.hdy.6886170
Cited by
820
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review