Interspecific crosses between Tulipa gesneriana cultivars and wild Tulipa species: a survey

Abstract

Interspecific crosses were made between 76 Tulipa gesneriana cultivars and 28 botanical Tulipa species. Tulipa gesneriana proved fully congruent (all cross-combinations giving hybrid progeny) with members of the subsection Gesnerianae, was moderately affiliated (50% of all cross-combinations giving hybrid progeny) with representatives of the subsection Eichleres, and was found to be incongruent with most other Tulipa species (except T. stapfii of the subsection Oculussolis).Relationships between T. gesneriana and some representatives of the subsection Eichleres were addressed in more detail. Seeds were harvested in all cross-combinations, but the number of seeds depended on the T. gesneriana cultivar used as the female partner. Apparently, the maternal genotype did affect pre-or post-fertilization processes.T. gesneriana was not crossable with T. kaufmanniana of the subsection Spiranthera. In this specific case, however, a bridge cross was used to overcome incongruity. For this, T. kaufmanniana was first combined with T. greigii, and the hybrid was subsequently crossed with T. gesneriana.These results demonstrate possibilities for interspecific cross-combinations in tulips and have offered opportunities for the introduction of desired new traits in the cultivated tulip.

The systematic value of nuclear genome size for “all” species of Tulipa L. (Liliaceae)

“…Furthermore a yellow margin to a black blotch on the base of a tepal, even the blotch itself, can be present or absent within a species (Van Raamsdonk and De Vries 1995). Genome size as investigated here (see Table 1), complements the work based mainly on morphological characters of Hall (1940) and of morphological characters, crossability studies and geographical distribution of van Raamsdonk et al (1991Raamsdonk et al ( -1997. Although van Raamsdonk et al used about 35 characters to discriminate among the species, they remark that some species come out identical in their scheme yet can be distinguished by characters not used in their investigations.…”

“…Section Eriostemones is simpler. Since Hall (1940), most (Wilford 2006), and absence of crossability relations (van Eyk et al 1991). The eight series of section Eichleres (A.D. Hall) Raamsd.…”

Scientific opinion addressing the safety assessment of plants developed using Zinc Finger Nuclease 3 and other Site‐Directed Nucleases with similar function

“…Bridge crosses, wide crosses using embryo rescue and somatic hybridisation have been used to overcome barriers to wider hybridisation (Stewart, 1981;Evans, 1983;Mathias et al, 1990;Van Eijk et al, 1991;Lynch et al, 1993;Fedak, 1999). Bridge crosses make it possible to exploit new sources of traits lacking from directly cross-compatible species (Van Eijk et al, 1991;Khrustaleva and Kik, 2000;van der Wiel et al, 2010). When a direct cross between two species is not possible, an intermediate hybrid with a third species, which is compatible with both species, can be used to bridge the crossing barrier.…”

Embryo-rescue in the genus Tulipa L.; successful direct transfer of T. kaufmanniana Regel germplasm into T. gesneriana L.

“…Crosses between members from the two sections have not succeeded thus far (Eikelboom & Van Eijk, 1987 ;Le Nard & De Hertogh, 1993b) . Some species within the individual sections are crossable ( Van Eijk et al ., 1991 ;Van Raamsdonk & de Vries, 1992) . The T gesneriana cultivars, which belong to the section Leiostemones, subsection Gesnerianae, show full congruity (sensu Hogenboom, 1973) with other species of the same subsection, whereas they are partly congruent with members of the subsection Eichleres, and incongruent with those of the subsections Spiranthera, Oculussolis, Kolpakowskianae, and Clusianae ( .…”

“…These crosses actually are bridge crosses of TT gesneriana with hybrids between T kaufmanniana and species of the subsection Eichleres (cf. Van Eijk et al ., 1991) instead of the direct cross of TT gesneriana x T kaufmanniana . Incongruity in the direct cross is most likely due to post-fertilization barriers, as pollen tube growth and fertilization appeared normal ( Van Eijk, personal communication) .…”