LOSS OF HYBRID LETHALITY DURING BACKCROSS PROGRAMS INVOLVING CHLAMYDOMONAS EUGAMETOS AND CHLAMYDOMONAS MOEWUSII (CHLOROPHYCEAE)1

Wild-type strains of the interfertile species Chlamydomonas eugametos (UTEX 9 and 10) and Chlamydomonas moewusii (UTEX 96 and 97) male readily and reciprocally; however, considerable lethality occurs among F₁ hybrid meiotic products. We prepared two hybrid backcross lineages using C. eugametos and C. moewusii. One lineage began with the cross C. eugametos mating-type-plus (mt⁺) × C. moewusii mating-type-minus (mt^?). An F₁ mt⁺ hybrid from this cross was back-crossed to C. moewusii mt^?, and a B₁ mt⁺ hybrid was recovered. The B₁ hybrid was again backcrossed to C. moewusii mt^?, and this process was repeated through the fifth backcross. The other backcross lineage began with the reciprocal cross C. moewusii mt⁺× C. eugametos mt^? and employed C. eugametos as the recurring mt^? parent. This lineage also was continued through the fifth backcross. Meiotic product survival in the reciprocal interspecific crosses was less than 10%. In successive back-cross generations associated with both lineages, this value increased progressively to a maximum of 85–90%, the level observed for the intraspecific crosses. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that multiple genetic differences exist between C. eugametos and C. moewusii and that these are the major source of meiotic product lethality associated with the interspecific crosses. The inheritance of chloroplast genetic markers for resistance to streptomycin (sr-2) and for resistance to erythromycin (er-nM1) was also scored w the interspecific crosses and in the backcrosses. Most hybrid zygospores transmitted the resistance markers of the mt⁺ parent only, or of both parents, with the former zygospore type being more common. Although the intraspecific C. eugametos and C. moewusii crosses differ conspicuously with respect to the fraction of zygospores which transmit chloroplast genetic markers of both parents, the inheritance of chloroplast genetic markers in the interspecific crosses and backcrosses at' scribed here failed to clarify the genetic basis for this difference.