Piebald rats and selection : $b An experimental test of the effectiveness of selection and of the theory of gametic purity in Mendelian crosses — John Shaqi
Piebald rats and selection : $b An experimental test of the effectiveness of selection and of the theory of gametic purity in Mendelian crossesCastle, William E. (William Ernest)
Science
Piebald rats and selection : $b An experimental test of the effectiveness of selection and of the theory of gametic purity in Mendelian crosses
Castle, William E. (William Ernest)
Heredity
The first experiment of this sort was a return selection from generation
6 (and 6½) of the minus selection series. The parents of generation 6
(Table 21) averaged -1.86 in grade; the average grade of their offspring
was -1.56, a regression of 0.30. The range of the offspring extended
from 0 to -2.50. Some low-grade offspring were chosen for a return
selection series (Table 31). The mean grade of the selected pairs ranged
from -0.37 to -0.87, their mean being -0.60. These parents produced 118
offspring, whose average grade was -1.28, a regression of 0.68 _in a
direction contrary to that of the regression in the minus selection
series_. The large amount of the regression might seem to imply that it
was even more difficult to return toward the former state of the race (in
the neighborhood of 0) than it had been to depart from it, but this can
not be insisted on, because the number of individuals under observation
is not sufficiently large. To test the reality and permanency of the
reversed regression, the selection was repeated five additional times,
altogether six successive return selections being made with the idea of
undoing what had been effected by six original selections in an opposite
direction. The result of the second successive return selection is shown
in Table 32. The parents here were of grade -0.50 and they produced 19
offspring of the average grade -0.95, a regression of 0.45 _away from_ 0
as before.
Table 33 shows the result of the third return selection. Individuals
entered in Table 32 as offspring appear here as parents. Only those pairs
which were of mean grade, -0.25 or -0.37, should really be regarded as a
_third return selection_. They gave offspring with mean grades of -0.63
and -0.86 respectively, which show regression of 0.38 and 0.49 _away
from_ 0.
But Table 33 shows also the character of young produced by -1.12 and
-1.25 parents in this same third return-selection generation, _i. e._,
by _unselected_ parents of the generation in question. Their young
also regress _away from_ 0—that is, in the direction of the original
selection. The -1.12 parents produced -1.61 offspring, a regression of
0.49, while the -1.25 parents produced -1.35 offspring, a regression of
0.10. For Table 33 as a whole the regression _away from_ 0 averages 0.31.
A fourth generation in the return-selection series is summarized in Table
34. The parents are of mean grade -0.63; their 50 offspring are of mean
grade -1.17, a regression amounting to 0.54 _away from_ 0 and in the
direction of the six generations of original selection.
Table 35 contains the results of the fifth generation of the series. The
parents are here of mean grade -0.65. The number of offspring is very
small (13), but they nevertheless show the reversed regression which
characterized the four preceding generations. Their mean was -0.75, a
regression of 0.10 away from 0.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account