Inheritance and Expression of the Naked‐Grained and Fatuoid Characters in Oat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In both hulled and naked oat ( Avena sativa L.), aberrant “fatuoid” plants can occur; these can be recognized by their prominent twisted and geniculate lemma awns. Fatuoids of hulled oat cannot be used as cultivars because their grain shatters from the plant. In contrast, fatuoids of naked oat do not shatter and can be used as cultivars. In naked oat, occasional hulled grains may occur, detracting from grain quality and consistency. Some fatuoid lines of naked oat have been observed to produce few hulled grains. Here, we used crosses involving two fatuoid naked oat lines and three nonfatuoid oat cultivars (one hulled and two naked) to study the inheritance of the naked‐grained and fatuoid characters. Phenotypic ratios observed in the F 2 generation were not consistent with codominant single‐gene models for either character. Dominant single‐gene models in which the hulled and fatuoid alleles are recessive, and for which the expression of the dominant gene is variable, were satisfactory in some, but not all, crosses. Within F 2 populations, true‐breeding fatuoids could be quite reliably selected on the basis of the presence of two or more geniculate lemma awns per spikelet, while true‐breeding nonfatuoids could be quite reliably selected on the basis of the absence of geniculate lemma awns. In naked oat, fatuoid plants tended to produce fewer hulled grains than nonfatuoid plants, suggesting that the fatuoid condition may enhance the expression of the naked‐grained character. Despite the lack of a complete understanding of the genetic control of the naked‐grained and fatuoid characters, it should be possible and useful to develop fatuoid naked oat lines for use as cultivars.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".