Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 587

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What Can Molecular and Morphological Markers Tell Us About Plant Hybridization?

Rieseberg, L. H., Ellstrand, N. C., Arnold, Mike·1993·Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences

Abstract

The study of hybrids and their evolutionary significance is often based on a number of tacit assumptions regarding character expression in hybrids. This article examines morphological, chemical, and molecular character expression in hybrids to determine whether traditionally recognized properties of hybrid plants, such as hybrid intermediacy and character coherence, are actually supported by empirical evidence, and also examines the impact of hybrids on phylogenetic analyses. We show that hybrids are a mosaic of both parental and intermediate morphological characters rather than just intermediate ones, and that a large proportion of first (64%) and later generation hybrids (89%) exhibit extreme or novel characters. Chemical character expression in hybrids is more predictable, with predominantly additive or complementary expression for both first generation hybrids (68%) and hybrid taxa (54%). Likewise, the genetic basis, and thus the expression of molecular characters, is well-worked out and predictable, although non-Mendelian inheritance has been reported in a few instances for molecular markers as well. There is even less empirical support for the concept of character coherence than hybrid intermediacy. Although morphological character coherence has been reported in both artificial and natural hybrid populations, it appears to be the exception rather than the rule. This idiosyncratic relationship among morphological characters is shown to be the norm for the relationship of morphological to molecular characters, as well as for the relationship among molecular characters. Hybrids are shown to have little impact on the topology of nonhybrid taxa in phylogenetic trees. However, the expression of primitive vs. derived character states, the placement of hybrids in cladograms, the number of equally parsimonious trees produced, and the effects of hybrids on phylogenetic topology do not appear to be predictable. Thus, cladistic identification of hybrid taxa is difficult and may not be possible based on phenotypic data, regardless of the analytical tools used.

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 · 10.1080/07352689309701902

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 587

Metadata

Authors
Rieseberg, L. H., Ellstrand, N. C., & Arnold, M.
Venue
Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences
Published
1993-01
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
213-241
ISSN
  • 0735-2689 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-7836
OpenAlex
W2029875789
Cited by
587
References
3
FWCI
13.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What Can Molecular and Morphological Markers Tell Us About Plant Hybridization? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/07352689309701902
The paper
Rieseberg, L. H., Ellstrand, N. C., & Arnold, M. (1993). What Can Molecular and Morphological Markers Tell Us About Plant Hybridization? Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689309701902

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.