Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Differences between Self-Incompatibility and Self-Sterility

Abstract

THE term ‘self-sterile’ is used for describing plants which fail to set self-seed when they are grown in isolation or when they are self-pollinated. Silow1 reviewed the early usage of this term and proposed the term ‘voluntarily self-sterile’ to describe Lotus plants that fail to set seed when isolated from insects and ‘artificially self-sterile’ when they still fail to set self-seed following artificial self-pollination. He observed that several Lotus species in isolation set more self-seed following artificial self-pollination than the same plants without artificial self-pollination. This difference can be accounted for by the presence of a stigmatic membrane which prevents germination and growth of any pollen. This membrane is ruptured by artificial self-pollination or by insect pollination of the flower, after which pollen can germinate and grow. The presence of a stigmatic membrane was observed by Elliott2 in L. tenuis and by Giles3 in L. corniculatus. Giles3 was unable to observe any difference in germination between self- and cross-pollen once the membrane ruptured. The presence of a similar membrane was observed by me4 in several other Lotus species. This membrane can account for the observed voluntary self-sterility and for differences between voluntary and artificial self-sterility, but it does not account for artificial self-sterility.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Silow, R. A., Welsh Plant Breeding Sta. Bull. (Ser. H), 12, 234 (1931).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Elliott, F. C., “Plant Breeding and Cytogenetics” (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1958).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Giles, W. L., Ph.D. thesis (Univ. of Missouri, 1949).

  4. Bubar, J. S., Can. J. Bot., 36, 65 (1958).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. East, E. M., and Manglesdorf, A. J., Proc. U.S. Nat. Acad. Sci., 11, 166 (1925).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Brink, R. A., and Cooper, D. C., Science, 90, 545 (1939).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pandey, K. K., Amer. J. Bot., 44, 879 (1957).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dawson, C. D. R., J. Genet., 42, 49 (1941).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bateman, A. J., Heredity, 10, 257 (1956).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bolton, J. L., Sci. Agric., 28, 97 (1948).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

BUBAR, J. Differences between Self-Incompatibility and Self-Sterility. Nature 183, 411–412 (1959). https://doi.org/10.1038/183411b0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/183411b0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing