You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Physiological Variation between the Generations and Among the Strains of Watermolds in the Subgenus Euallomyces
Leonard Machlis and Jean M. Crasemann
American Journal of Botany
Vol. 43, No. 8 (Oct., 1956), pp. 601-611
Published by: Botanical Society of America, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2438876
Page Count: 11
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Plant growth, Gametophytes, Sporophytes, Liquids, Nitrogen, Gametes, Plants, Sloping terrain, Ploidies, Carbon
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The gametophytic and sporophytic generations of selected isolates of watermolds in the subgenus Euallomyces were found to have the same nutritional requirements, linear growth rates in liquid culture, and abilities to grow on the same amino acids as nitrogen, carbon, and nitrogen and carbon sources. The two generations differed only in that the gametophytes of 9 of the 10 strains compared had longer lag phases than the corresponding sporophytes. Seventeen strains of Euallomyces were compared with respect to the growth of the gametophytes on yeast agar slants, gamete formation and behavior, growth of the sporophyte in liquid culture, and nature and extent of rhizoidal and meiosporangial development. The strains were selected to include from A. arbuscula eight with n = 16, and one each with n = 8, 24, and 32 and from A. macrogynus three with n = 28, one each with n = 14 and 56, and one with n unknown. The variations observed are discussed in relation to the present systematic treatment of the subgenus and the available cytogenetic information.
American Journal of Botany © 1956 Botanical Society of America, Inc.