Claim · model-written summary
Stoneville 7A did not differ genetically from Texas 203 for first flowering date.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Material
- St 7Ae0
- Outcome
- date of first flowere0
- Comparator
- T‐203e0
Not reportedGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingDirectionValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“St 7A differed genetically from T‐40Y but not from T‐203 for date of first flower”
t0“cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.)”
Title
Breeding Potentials of Noncultivated Cottons. III. Inheritance of Date of First Flower1
F. D. Wilson; R. L. Wilson Crop Science 1976. doi:10.2135/cropsci1976.0011183x001600060034x
Other claims from this paper (10)
- Association Deltapine 16 differed from Texas 203 for flowering by an additive component.
- Association Deltapine 16 differed from Texas 40Y by additive and epistatic components.
- Observation Texas 203 and Texas 40Y were phenotypically similar but genetically differed slightly in flowering response.
- Observation Texas 203 and Texas 40Y each differed from Texas 711 by at least two genetic factors.
- Association DPL-16 differed from Texas 711 by more flowering factors than Texas 203 or Texas 40Y.
- Observation Stoneville 7A seemed phenotypically close to DPL-16.
- Observation The Stoneville 7A by DPL-16 hybrid showed significant additive, dominance, and epistatic effects.
- Observation Stoneville 7A differed genetically from Texas 40Y for first flowering date.
- Observation Stoneville 7A, like DPL-16, was quite different from Texas 711.
- Observation Two crosses with Texas 711 showed favorable F1 midparent heterosis.