Skip to main content

The Interpretation of the Triploid Intersexes of Solenobia

  • Chapter
  • 37 Accesses

Part of the book series: Experientia Supplementum ((EXS,volume 35))

Abstract

J. Seiler1and his students have enriched our science with a wealth of data on triploid intersexuality in the psychid moth, Solenobia triquetrella, in which all individuals produced by fertilization of diploid parthenogenetic eggs and therefore of the triploid constitution 3A + XXY are intersexual. The simplest formal genetic explanation for these intersexes is, of course, the old one derived from the Lymantria case, namely that the balance between male determiners in the X-chromosomes and female determiners outside of them is intermediate between the normal balances for females and males respectively. The detailed study of the morphology of these triploid intersexes showed considerable differences from the facts found in the diploid intersexes of Lymantria, indicating that the explanation of the structure of the Lymantria intersexes by the so-called time law could not be simply transferred to the Solenobia intersexes. It is regrettable that it was not always realized by both parties to the discussion, i.e. Seiler1 and myself, that the completely different genetic situation (i.e. female and male chromosomal constitution in Lymantria, intersexual chromosomal constitution in Solenobia) could hardly result in a completely identical interpretation of both cases. It is still more regrettable that some of the workers in the field and also some in related fields indicated that the possible non-applicability of the laws found in Lymantria to the divergent facts in Solenobia would reflect upon the analysis of the Lymantria case, based upon greatly different genetic and morphological facts. This unfortunate and unjustifiable generalization is the more deplorable because outsiders who are are not sufficiently acquainted with the facts become confused and no longer know what is proved and what is disproved. The result is plainly seen in many superficial, even distorted and unobjective quotations in some of the recent literature on sex-determination.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Notes

  1. J. Seiler, Exper. 5, 425 (1949).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. R. Goldschmidt, Arch. Klausstift, 21, 269 (1946)

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Goldschmidt, Roux’ Arch. 124, 618 (1931).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. I should like to use this occasion to mention and to apologize for an unfortunate error which crept into former publications and to which Kosminsky4 kindly drew attention. Male intersexes always show on their wings a mosaic of female and male parts; this is not usually the case in female intersexes. But when female intersexes are derived from crosses involving the so-called Gifu race as one parent the female wings do have the mosaic character. Photographs were given in Goldschmidt’ and other publications. When later pictures of a whole series of male, female, and Gifu type intersexes were needed for a textbook and for a review, photographs of individual moths were selected from a large number and assembled for plates. In doing this, by mistake a photograph of a high grade male intersex was pasted on to the plate of the Gifu series so that now the same individual appears once as a male intersex and once as a female intersex. (See Goldschmidt’, 1934, p. 61, lower left, and p. 62 No. III.) The individual intended for fig. 11, p. 61, is the one pictured in the book of Goldschmidt’ fig. 46, h. It is unfortunate that this technical error was not discovered, but there is still no doubt that male intersexes and females of the Gifu type can be readily distinguished.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. Goldschmidt, Arch. Klausstift. 21, 269 (1946)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Goldschmidt, Roux’ Arch. 124, 618 (1931).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. A. M. Du Bois, Z. Morph. Ökol. 15, 447 (1929).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. R. Goldschmidt, Z. ind. Abstl. 23, 1 (1920).

    Google Scholar 

  9. R. Goldschmidt, Lymantria, Bibl. Gen. 11, 1 (1934).

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. Goldschmidt, Z. in Abstl. 23, 1 (1920)

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. Goldschmidt, J. Morph. Oecol. 8, 63 (1927).

    Google Scholar 

  12. A.M. Du Bois, Z. Morph. Ökol. 15, 447 (1929).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. R. Goldschmidt, Genetica 20, 1 (1938).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. A.H. Sturtevant, Proc. Nat. Acad. 32, 84 (1946).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. R. Goldschmidt, Proc. Nat. Acad. 34, 245 (1948).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. F. Baltzer, Rev. suisse Zool. 44, 331 (1937)

    Google Scholar 

  17. F. Baltzer, Roux’ Arch. 136, 1 (1937).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. F.R. Lillie, Arch. Entwicklungsmech. 118, 499 (1929).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Th. Dobzhansky and C.B. Bridges, Amer. Nat. 62, 425 (1928).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Th. Dobzhansky, Bull. U.S.S.R. Bur. Genet. 8, 91 (1930).

    Google Scholar 

  21. R. Goldschmidt, Roux’ Arch. 124, 618 (1931).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. G.A. Lebedeff, Genet, 24, 553 (1939).

    Google Scholar 

  23. R. Goldschmidt, Arch. Mikr. Anat. 98, 292 (1923).

    Google Scholar 

  24. H. Nuesch, Arch. Klaus Stiftg. 22, 221 (1947).

    Google Scholar 

  25. C.B. Bridges, in: Allen, Sex and Internal Secretion, p. 15 (1939).

    Google Scholar 

  26. R. Goldschmidt, Biol. Cbl. 45, 536 (1925)

    Google Scholar 

  27. R. Goldschmidt, Die sexuellen Zwischenstufen, Monogr. Gesamtgeb. (Springer, Berlin) p. 554 (1931).

    Google Scholar 

  28. R. Goldschmidt and K. Panser, Biol. Cbl. 43, 446 (1923).

    Google Scholar 

  29. L.T. Wharton, University Texas Publ. 4228, 23 (1942).

    Google Scholar 

  30. W.W. Newby, University Texas Publ. 4228, 113 (1942).

    Google Scholar 

  31. W. Stone, University Texas Publ. 4228, 146 (1942).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Th. Dobzhansky and B. Spassky, Proc. Nat. Acad. 27, 556 (1941).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Since this was written I could analyse a new case of diploid male intersexuality in Drosophila which follows beautifully the time law and also furnishes the data for the proper interpretation of Newby’s intersexes.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1980 Springer Basel AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Goldschmidt, R.B. (1980). The Interpretation of the Triploid Intersexes of Solenobia. In: Piternick, L.K. (eds) Controversial Geneticist and Creative Biologist. Experientia Supplementum, vol 35. Birkhäuser, Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-5855-7_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-5855-7_11

  • Publisher Name: Birkhäuser, Basel

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-0348-5857-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-0348-5855-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics