Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

SUPPORT FOR BAKER'S LAW—AS A RULE

SUPPORT FOR BAKER'S LAW—AS A RULE NOTES AND COMMENTS HERBERT G. BAKER Botany Department, University of California, Berkeley Received May 17, 1967 serious disadvantage to a dioecious species, it In a very interesting book and a series of should be even less disadvantageous for a articles (two of which have appeared in this hermaphrodite (monoclinous) species showing self- journal) Sherwin Carlquist (1965, 196611, b, c, d) incompatibility, for here (with all kinds of in- has published his views on the biota of long- compatibility systems known, except that of distance dispersal, giving special attention to the problems posed by the floras of oceanic islands. distyly) the chances are greater that the two I can concur heartily with the great majority adjacent plants will be cross-compatible than that they will be cross-incompatible. For dioecious of the conclusions which be draws and I believe species, the chances are no more than even that that these publications represent a notable con- they will be of the same or of different “sex.” tribution to our understanding of waif floras in general. But there are some points of disagree- Consequently, if Carlquist’s argument is justi- ment. fied, we might expect that there would be a Thus, Carlquist (1966d:443) asserts that http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Evolution Oxford University Press

SUPPORT FOR BAKER'S LAW—AS A RULE

Baker, Herbert G.
Evolution , Volume 21 (4) – Dec 1, 1967
Download PDF
4 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/support-for-baker-s-law-as-a-rule-ivQvLFWK3Q

References (32)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Society for the Study of Evolution
ISSN
0014-3820
eISSN
1558-5646
DOI
10.1111/j.1558-5646.1967.tb03440.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

NOTES AND COMMENTS HERBERT G. BAKER Botany Department, University of California, Berkeley Received May 17, 1967 serious disadvantage to a dioecious species, it In a very interesting book and a series of should be even less disadvantageous for a articles (two of which have appeared in this hermaphrodite (monoclinous) species showing self- journal) Sherwin Carlquist (1965, 196611, b, c, d) incompatibility, for here (with all kinds of in- has published his views on the biota of long- compatibility systems known, except that of distance dispersal, giving special attention to the problems posed by the floras of oceanic islands. distyly) the chances are greater that the two I can concur heartily with the great majority adjacent plants will be cross-compatible than that they will be cross-incompatible. For dioecious of the conclusions which be draws and I believe species, the chances are no more than even that that these publications represent a notable con- they will be of the same or of different “sex.” tribution to our understanding of waif floras in general. But there are some points of disagree- Consequently, if Carlquist’s argument is justi- ment. fied, we might expect that there would be a Thus, Carlquist (1966d:443) asserts that

Journal

Evolution – Oxford University Press

Published: Dec 1, 1967

There are no references for this article.