Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 365

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Electrophoretic Evidence and Plant Systematics

Open access
Gottlieb, L. D.·1977·Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden

Abstract

The study of phenotypes and their variation often provides evidence for phylogenetic inferences in plant systematics.Therefore, it is critical that the phenotypes analyzed reflect as directly as possible the underlying genotypes.The equation between phenotype and genotype is simpler and better understood for evidence obtained by electrophoresis of plant enzymes than for most morphological characters.This article riis the advantages and limitations of imo.yapana evidence to test hypotheses in plant systematics and evolution.It also summarizes the results of a large number of studies which have utilized this evidence.Three general 1 pe these studies are: (1).Conspecific plant populations are "ari similar genetically as pou by their very high mean genetic identities, 0.95 + 0.02.This result suggests that one a few populations often constitute an adequate sample of a species.775 e sini species have strikingly reduced mean genetic identities, 0.67 + vever, certain pairs of annual plant species have genetic identities similar to those of pan i 5 In these cases, the species have been shown to be related as progenitor and derivative with the derivative being of recent origin.( The amount of genetic variability within plant populations appears closely correlated with their breeding system, with outcrossing populations substantially more variable than inbreeding ones.The article 7 describes a number of actual and potential applications of electrophoresis in plant systematic Evidence obtained by electrophoresis of enzymes has not been widely utilized by plant systematists although it has dominated the research of many of their zoological poa po and population geneticists ( Manwell & Baker, 1970;Lewontin, 1974; 1975; Ayala, 1976).This has meant that the strengths and weaknesses of s eni for solving systematic and evolutionary questions in plant biology have not been sufficiently discussed.The present article is designed to facilitate an efficient evaluation, and emphasizes the unique characteristics of electrophoretic evidence, the requirements for its analysis, and actual and potential applications in plant systematics and evolution. ELECTROPHORETIC EVIDENCE; ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONSThe systematist analyzes phenotypes and their variation and often uses this evidence for phylogenetic inference.Such inferences require that observed phenotypes have a specifiable relationship to unobserved genotypes.The equation between phenotype and genotype is simpler and better understood for electrophoretic evidence than it is for evidence obtained from morphological characters or chromatographic comparisons of secondary metabolites.This follows from the colinearity of amino acid sequence and nucleotide sequence as well as the specificity of enzyme catalysis.It also reflects the fact that electrophoretic evidence is used to answer a very different kind of question than has usually been posed by systematists.kaysa as analysis answers a question such as: Are flower petals with

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 · 10.2307/2395330

Cites

33 of 33 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 33 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Gottlieb, L. D.
Venue
Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1977
Volume
64
Issue
2
Pages
161
ISSN
0026-6493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2335122760
Cited by
365
References
33
FWCI
15.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Electrophoretic Evidence and Plant Systematics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2395330
The paper
Gottlieb, L. D. (1977). Electrophoretic Evidence and Plant Systematics. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. https://doi.org/10.2307/2395330

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.