THE GENETIC RELATION BETWEEN TRITICUM DICOCCUM 
DICOCCOIDES AND A SIMILAR MORPHOLOGICAL TYPE 
PRODUCED SYNTHETICALLY 1 
By H. H. Love, Department of Plant Breeding , Cornell University Agricultural 
Experiment Station y and W. T. Craig, Agent , Office of Cereal Investigations , 
Bureau of Plant Industry , Department of Agriculture 
The synthetic production of a form similar to the wild emmer (Triticum dicoc- 
cum dicoccoides Kcke.) has been reported by the authors of this paper. 2 This 
synthetic form resulted from a cross between Early Red Chief, a variety of 
Triticum vulgare Vill., and one the writers received under the name Marouani, a 
variety of Triticum durum Desf. It is possible that the name Marouani was a 
misnomer, as Dr. C. R. Ball, on examining the sample, stated that it more 
nearly resembled the variety Peliss. 
In the earlier paper it was noted that the chief difference between the true 
wild emmer and the synthetic form is the width of spikelets. The kernels of the 
synthetic type are broader than those of the true wild form as illustrated by the 
samples on hand. This causes the spikelets to be broader. The true wild 
emmer, however, is very variable and some forms are found that have very 
broad spikelets, even resembling the synthetic form. 
One of the chief characteristics of the wild emmer is the fragility of the rachis. 
The articulation is such that at maturity the spikelets separate one from another 
very readily. The rachis segment which bears a spikelet remains attached to 
the base of the spikelet when the spike disarticulates, just as in ordinary emmer. 
Disarticulation occurs so easily that it is very difficult to obtain a head of the 
wild emmer intact. The synthetic form, PI. 1, B, is very similar to this wild one, 
PI. 1, A. 
As the synthetic form, which was produced as a result of the cross, so nearly 
resembled the true wild emmer in all its visible characters, it seemed worth while 
to compare the two forms as to their genetic behavior. With this in mind the 
two have been crossed upon the same variety. 
Two different kinds of crosses were made for this study. In one case a durum 
wheat, the Kubanka, was crossed with the two wild types, and in the other case 
both of them were crossed with Black Winter emmer. In the discussion of these 
results the synthetic type will be referred to as synthetic wild and the true wild 
emmer as true wild or simply as wild. 
THE Fi GENERATION 
The F x plants resulting from the two crosses, where the true wild and synthetic 
wild were crossed with Kubanka, prove to be quite similar. The culms are solid 
or full of pith below the head. The spikes break up readily, indicating the domi- 
1 Received for publication March 29, 1924. Published as Paper No. 129, Department of Plant Breed¬ 
ing, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 
2 Love, H. H., and Craig, W. T. the synthetic production of wild wheat forms. Jour. Hered¬ 
ity 10: 51-64, illus. 1919. 
Journal of Agricultural Research. Vol. XXVIII, No. 6 
Washington, D. C. May 10,1924 
Key No. G-413 
96036—241-2 
(515) 
