栽培稻分类方法的比较

 为了比较Glaszmann和程侃声等对亚洲栽培稻的分类体系,将Glaszmann氏提供的197个水稻品种的同功酶位点原始记录和程氏对它们就6个形态性状的评分作了主成分分析和聚类分析。结果显示二人的分类基本一致,数值分类也表明栽培稻可以只分籼粳两个亚种,处于中间的少数品种可称为偏籼或偏粳。程氏采用的“性状指数法”似更为便利而有效,特别适于田间及育种工作,虽然带有一定的经验成分,但加以生化或数值分类的检验,即可弥补该法的不足,有助于澄清个别不够明确和错划的事例。因此,我们建议为求得最佳的分类系统,最好运用二种以上的方法,相互补充校正。

A Comparison of Methods in Classification of Cultivated Rice

The isozyme records from Glaszmann and morphological traits scores from Cheng on a total of 197 rice cultivars were both subjected to principal components analysis and subsequent clustering in order to make a comparison of their classification of Asian rice. It is found that the two schemes are in good accordance and the numerical taxonomy justifies the classification of rice into hsien (indica)and keng(japonica)subspecies with a minority of intermediates between them. The intermediates are further grouped into hsien-cline and keng-cline. The Character index (hybrid index) method adopted by Cheng appears to be more efficient and convenient, especially in field and breeding works, though a biochemical or numerical examination may be of great aid to delimit ambiguities and to detect miss-classification. So, for a best scheme of classification, it is recommended to use two or more devices as supplementary means.