Advertisement

Introduction

Chapter
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

It has now been sixty years since Blakeslee (1904) reported in Rhizopus nigricans, the common “black bread mold”, the first case of obligatory cross-mating in the fungi. The required interaction between two self-sterile individuals in the process of sexual reproduction he designated heterothallism in distinction to homothallism, in which each individual had the competence to elaborate sexual organs and to complete the sexual cycle in isolation. Within a very short time, the more common species of the Mucorales were unambiguously categorized as heterothallic or homothallic, and in each heterothallic species, two and only two classes of individuals could be found. Blakeslee (1906) considered the two classes of individuals of heterothallic species to be differentiated in respect to sexual sign, since one would react only with the larger, so-called female gametangia of homothallic species and the other only with the smaller, male gametangia. The two classes, previously and arbitrarily designated (+) and (-), were accordingly interpreted as 9 and ♂, respectively.

Keywords

Neurospora Crassa High Fungus Incompatibility System Mating Competence Incompatibility Factor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bauch, R.: Über multipolare Sexualität bei Ustilago longissima. Arch. Protistenk. 70, 417–466 (1930).Google Scholar
  2. Benjamin, R.K., and L. Shanor: The development of male and female individuals in the dioecious species Laboulbenia formicarum. Am. J. Botany 37, 471–476 (1950).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bensaude, M.: Recherches sur le cycle évolutif et la sexualité chez les Basidiomy-cètes. Thèse, Neumours 156 pp. (1918).Google Scholar
  4. Blakeslee, A.F.: Sexual reproduction in the Mucorineae. Proc. Amer. Acad. Sci. 40, 206–319 (1904).Google Scholar
  5. Blakeslee, A.F.: Zygospore germinations in the Mucorineae. Ann. Mycol. 4, 1–28 (1906).Google Scholar
  6. Burgeff, H.: Untersuchungen über Variabilität, Sexualität, und Erblichkeit bei Phycomyces nitens. I. Flora 107, 259–316 (1914).Google Scholar
  7. Burgeff, H.: Sexualität und Parasitismus bei den Mucorineen. Ber. Deut. Botan. Ges. 38, 38–327 (1920).Google Scholar
  8. Collins, O.R.: Heterothallism and homothallism in two Myxomycetes. Am. J. Botany 48, 674–683 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Couch, J.N.: Heterothallism in Dictyuchus, a genus of the water moulds. Ann. Botany 40, 848–881 (1926).Google Scholar
  10. Craigie, J.H.: Discovery of the function of pyenia of the rust fungi. Nature (London) 120, 765–767 (1927).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dee, J.: A mating type system in an acellular slime-mould. Nature (London) 185, 780–781 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drayton, F.D., and J. W. Groves: Stromatinia narcissi, a new sexually dimorphic Discomycete. Mycologia 44, 119–140 (1952).Google Scholar
  13. Esser, K.: Die Genetik der sexuellen Fortpflanzung bei den Pilzen. Biol. Zentr. 81, 161–172 (1962).Google Scholar
  14. Esser, K., and R. Kuenen: Genetik der Pilze. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag 1965.Google Scholar
  15. Hartmann, M.: Die Sexualität der Protisten und Thallophyten und ihre Bedeutung für eine allgemeine Sexualitäts-Theorie. Z. ind. Abst.- u. Vererb.-Lehre 54, 76–126 (1930).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartmann, M.: Relative Sexualität und ihre Bedeutung für eine allgemeine Sexualitäts- und eine allgemeine Befruchtungstheorie. Naturw. Rundschau 19, 8–37 (1931).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harder, R., and G. Sörgel. 1938. Über einen neuen planoisogamen Phycomyceten mit Generationswechsel und seine phylogenetische Bedeutung. Nach. Ges. Wiss. Gottingen N. F. Fachgruppen 6, Biologie 3, 119–127 (1938).Google Scholar
  18. Kniep, H.: Untersuchungen über den Antherenbrand (Ustilago violacea Pers.). Z. Botan. 11, 257–284 (1919).Google Scholar
  19. Kniep, H.: Über morphologische und physiologische Geschlechtsdifferenzierung. (Untersuchungen an Basidiomyzeten.) Verh. phys.-med. Ges. Würzburg 46, 1–18 (1920).Google Scholar
  20. Kniep, H.: Über Geschlechtsbestimmung und Reduktionsteilung. Verh. phys.-med. Ges. Würzburg 47, 1–28 (1922).Google Scholar
  21. Lindegren, C. C.: III. Pure breed stocks and crossing over in N. crassa. Bull. Torrey Botan. Club 60, 133–154 (1933).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindegren, C. C.: The structure of the sex-chromosome of Neurospora crassa. J. Heredity 27, 250–259 (1936).Google Scholar
  23. Lindegren, C. C., and G. Lindegren: Segregation, mutation and copulation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Ann. Mo. Botan. Garden 30, 453–468 (1943).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Quintanilha, A.: Étude génétique du phénomène de Buller. Bol. Soc. broter. 13, 425–486 (1939).Google Scholar
  25. Raper, J.R.: Life cycles, sexuality and sexual mechanisms in the Fungi, in Sex in Microorganisms. (Eds. Wenrich, D.H., I.F. Lewis, and J.R. Raper.) Am. Assoc. Advance. Sci., pp. 42–81. Washington 1954.Google Scholar
  26. Raper,J.R.: Heterokaryosis and sexuality in fungi. Trans. Acad. Sci. N. Y. II 17, 627–635 (1955).Google Scholar
  27. Raper,J.R.: In press. Life cycles, basic patterns of sexuality and sexual mechanisms. The Fungi (A. S. Sussman, and G. C. Ainsworth, eds.), Vol. II.Google Scholar
  28. Raper, J.R., and K. Esser: The Fungi. In The Cell (J. Brachet, and A. E. Mirsky, eds.). 6, 139–245 (1964).Google Scholar
  29. Satina, S., and A. F. Blakeslee: Studies on biochemical differences between sexes in Mucors. V. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (U. S.) 14, 308–316 (1928).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Satina, S., and A. F. Blakeslee: Criteria of male and female in bread molds (Mucors). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (U.S.) 15, 735–740 (1929).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shear, C.L., and B.O. Dodge: Life histories and heterothallism of the red bread mold fungi of the Monilia group. J. Agr. Res. 34, 1019–1042 (1927).Google Scholar
  32. Spiltoir, C.F.: Life cycle of Ascosphaera apis (Perkystis apis). Am. J. Botany 42, 501–508 (1955).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thaxter,R.: Contribution towards a monograph of the Laboulbeniaceae. Mem. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci. 12, 187–429 (1896).Google Scholar
  34. Vandendries,R.: La conduite sexuelle des Hymenomycètes interpretée par les théories de Hartmann convernant le bisexualité et la relativité sexuelle. Bull. Acad. Belg. Cl. Sci. 16, 1213–1234 (1930a).Google Scholar
  35. Vandendries,R.: Conduite sexuelle de Psathyrella disseminata et essais de determination des valeurs relatives des realizateurs sexuels selon Hartmann. Bull. Acad. Belg. Cl. Sci. 16, 1235–1249 (1930b).Google Scholar
  36. Whitehouse, H.L.K.: Heterothallism and sex in fungi. Biol. Rev. 24, 411–447 (1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Whitehouse,H.L.K.: The significance of some sexual phenomena in the fungi. Indian Phytopath. 4, 91–105 (1951).Google Scholar
  38. Winge, Ö., and O. Laustsen: On 14 new yeast types, produced by hybridization. Compt. Rend. Trav. Lab. Carlsberg, Serie Physiologique 22, 337–355 (1939a).Google Scholar
  39. Winge, Ö., and O. Laustsen: Saccharomycodes Ludwigii, a balanced heterozygote. Compt. Rend Trav. Lab. Carlsberg, Serie Physiologique 22, 357–370 (1939b).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1965

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations