Citrus > Cold Hardy Citrus

Citsuma Prague - Chimera Prague - Chimera Lussa ‘Химера Лусса’ - solution

(1/3) > >>

Demo89:
Hello everyone! This is my first post. So far I have been looking at cold hardy citrus from a viewer position.

First of all, I would like to thank Sylvain and Snek for their efforts to the identification of this unusual plant. Thanks to them I became interested in the subject.

It was mainly their work that led me to the clue that is most likely the solution to this mystery.

I would like to ask you to confirm whether you agree that the Prague Chimera is in fact a Lussa Chimera  (Химера Лусса ).

For those not in the subject, I recommend that you learn the second part of the story told by Snek and Sylvain:
1)   https://citrusy.estranky.cz/fotoalbum/mrazuodolne-hybridy/hybrid-_unshiu-x-poncirus-trifoliata_/
2)   https://tropicalfruitforum.com/index.php?topic=23499.50
3)   https://citrusgrowersv2.proboards.com/thread/521/prague-chimera?page=2

I believe that the story of the Lussa / Prague chimera is even more remarkable than anyone thought. That's why I've spent a lot of time compiling and telling it. At this point, it lends itself to a movie, showing how little we know about Soviet attempts to grow hardy citrus and Soviet botanical history in general. Until two weeks ago, I was a layman, but solving this puzzle sparked my interest in the subject of Soviet attempts to grow these unique plants.

A few more sentences for context: The Soviets tended to favor uncertain empirical evidence over a scientific approach. In addition, the situation is complicated by the figure of Michurin. I recommend opening Wikipedia https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwan_Miczurin (leaving the Polish language) and translating the first section to learn a little about this figure and to understand how strongly he influenced Soviet fruit growers and additionally read the English tab. Even better read about such concepts as Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism , whose protoplast and symbol was precisely Michurin. This is a very sad story that cost the lives of many botanists in the Soviet Union. This context is very important to better understand the story. In addition, the collapse of the Soviet Union caused an extraordinary loss of knowledge and competence. After this introduction, I can begin to tell this remarkable story of an extraordinary plant that is remarkably intertwined with the history of Soviet botany.

As everyone probably knows, the home of the unshiu mandarin is Japan. It was brought to Sukhumi in 1893 and to Batumi in 1897 (now a territory of Georgia). It was grown on a small scale in these areas even before the Soviet Union was established in 1922. The Soviets restricted imports from abroad, so there was a need to grow these fruits on their own to meet the Soviet Union's domestic needs. The creation of the so-called Praga came in 1924. Let's give the disscoverer the floor (Luss A. И. 1935 (1)):


In the fall of 1928, the author was able to identify a graft chimera between Unshiu mandarin and P. trifoliata, which arose from the junction of the scion with the scion after the scion, which had frozen in the winter of 1924, had been cut almost to the ground and had begun to regenerate. One of the regenerated shoots differed significantly from the typical shoots of P. trifoliata and Unshiu, as if combining features of both, which suggested that it had a periclinal-chimeric structure. Subsequent anatomical study confirmed this assumption, and it turned out that the internal component was P. trifoliata and the external one Unshiu. The shoots, prickles and leaves are intermediate between the two original forms, while varying considerably within the tree. 
The leaf shape varies from intermediate trifoliate through a number of transitional combinations to the almost typical trifoliate and mandarin form, with much smaller leaf size. It is interesting to note that depending on the combination of tissues of both components, the relationship of leaves to leaf fall varies considerably: while some fall off quite soon after the leaves of P. trifoliata fall off, others do not fall off and remain evergreen. No pure leaching of the original types has yet been observed. The branching is more dense than in both parental species.
Flowers are formed in small number, closer to Unshiu type, but usually ugly (with different degrees of ugliness), often with undeveloped columns and smaller; anthers are of intermediate type, outwardly almost normal, forming normal pollen in considerable quantity. Young ovaries are also of intermediate type, closer to P. trifoliata, develop irregularly and fall off quite early. This chimera is currently being studied in more detail. Methods of differentiated coloration are being sought for more in-depth anatomical study. Experimental attempts have been made to produce new types of grafted chimeras, including economically valuable ones, but they have not yielded positive results to date.


The same year saw the publication of two extensive articles by Luss on similar topics (2). As you can see, the author had already established in 1935 that he was dealing with a chimera. We can assume that there are further references to this unusual plant. Unfortunately, at the moment I do not have access to these studies.
I suppose it was partly the study of Prague that allowed him to understand plant genetics, since it was the main object of his research. As early as 1933, he wrote an extensive publication on the unshiu mandarin (Лусс А.И. Сорта и почковая вариации мандарина Уншиу. Социалистическое растениеводство, pp. 43-68). Now we enter the sad part of the story. The work has received crushing criticism. Please note the name of the editor and author of the reviewed article:


RECENCES
"Yarrowization." Journal of Plant Developmental Biology, No 4 (7). Edited by Acad. Т. D. Lysenko and Prof. I. I. Prezent. Selkhozgiz, 1936. Circulation 13000. Price 1 p. 50 k.
The journal contains an unpublished article by I. V. Michurin: “Erroneous judgments of many scientific researchers on the question of recognizing the possibility of vegetative hybrids”.
“To reject the possibility of vegetative hybrids is too naive”, - writes Vladimirovich and gives a clear and exhaustive justification of his attitudes, confirming them with a number of examples from his many years of practice. Addressing to “doubting botanists”, he writes:
“Well, cabinet botanists, instead of carping over grafting roots of beets, potatoes and the like, bother to copulate any cultural large-fruited apple-tree into the crown of an adult wild apple-tree species, for example, Siberian berry apple-tree - wait for the fruit-bearing of the scion, and then you will be convinced of the phenomenon of such a sharp change that the variety cannot be recognized by the resulting fruit at all”.
The article is accompanied by photos from I.V. Michurin's own drawings (fruits of condyl-synapa).
The same journal contains articles by:
1) by P. N. Yakovlev - “On the mutual influence of pod and scion in the light of Michurin's works”;
2) by Prof. P. G. Shitt - “Critical remarks on the article by A. I. Luss”.
These articles are directed against A. I. Luss and other geneticists who doubt the correctness of the positions of the revolutionary geneticist Michurin.
In his article , A. I. Luss tries to prove the incorrectness of Michurin's position on the relationship between scion and scion. Transplants, according to A. I. Luss, affect the plant organism only externally, the internal remains unchanged. Hereditary changes, through interchange in grafted
...
Stopping on the question of the nature of mutual influence of transplants, which according to Luss affects only “external” in the plant organism, P. N. Yakovlev writes: "But A. I. Luss is far from original in these views. He only acts as an apologist of modern bourgeois genetic views according to which atoms - genes, at best, if they change, change by themselves, without any dependence on soma. For “pure” geneticists, the gene acts as if at a distance without a reverse effect.


This was one of the last articles by Mikhurin, who died in 1935. One might hastily think that it was just a critical review from 1936, but by a strange coincidence it was the beginning of the Soviet botanists war. Lussin published his articles in Теоретические основы селекции растений.
Let's read what fate befell the editor and initiator of this journal and, in my opinion, one of the most outstanding soviet botanists. russian wikipedia


If as early as June 17, 1935, at a meeting of the Presidium of the VASKhNIL, Vavilov gave Lysenko such a characteristic: “Lysenko is a cautious researcher, the most talented, his experiments are impeccable,”[57][120] - then already from 1936, when Lysenko led the activity to defeat Soviet genetics, starting with a statement denying Mendel's laws and the possibility of their practical use in breeding work, Vavilov made it clear in the sharp discussion that followed that he was his scientific opponent. In 1936, Vavilov, speaking with a report at the session of the VASKHNIL “Ways of Soviet breeding,” for the first time publicly expressed disagreement with the position of Lysenko. After the experiments of P. N. Konstantinov, as well as M. I. Khajinov and A. I. Lutkov, which showed the absolute ineffectiveness of the method of yarovization, Vavilov stopped supporting Lysenko's work on yarovization and his other initiatives and moved to openly oppose Lysenko in discussions[121]. In early 1940 he wrote to the People's Commissar of Agriculture I. A. Benediktov:
The high administrative position of T. D. Lysenko, his intolerance, little culture lead to a peculiar introduction of his, for the vast majority of those who know the field, very dubious ideas, close to already outmoded by science (Lamarckism). Taking advantage of his position, Lysenko actually began to massacre his ideological opponents[122].
According to studies by historians,[57][123][124][125] there were at least two open conflicts between Vavilov and Lysenko in 1940, during one of which Vavilov said to Lysenko, “Because of your activities, our country has been overtaken on many issues in the West”.
He is later tried 1941 and sentenced 1942: on June 23, 1942, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR decided to commute Vavilov's death sentence to 20 years in prison and a stay in a forced labor camp.


And what happened to our discoverer and outstanding botanist can be found in the biography:

Memories of Andrei Ivanovich Luss, the famous Soviet citrusologist, I would like to conclude with N.I. Vavilov's characterization: "A valuable conscientious scientist of great productivity. He published extensive works on the theoretical basis of breeding, as well as a number of extensive works on citrus " . In September 1941, A. I. Luss volunteered for the front, and in December he was killed near Tikhvin during the defense of Leningrad.

As I suppose, as a Polish resident in the context of these events and dates and Soviet propaganda, it was probably not volunteering. We can read about this sad period of Soviet botany history:

"More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were dismissed or imprisoned, and numerous scientists were executed in the Soviet campaign to suppress scientific opponents."

According to Wikipedia, the period of greatest repression for other botanical views ended around 1952, but open criticism and rehabilitation of scientists did not occur until around 1965.
Research on Praga continued during this hard period as well, and was done by “scientists” affiliated with Lysenko who tried to prove that it was a vegetative hybrid. The most important work from this period dates from 1951, and its author is Ф.Д. Мампория (4). It was not possible to access this particular work, but I found another work by this author(5):

In his time, A. I. Luss wrote about a “chimera” that developed from the grafting site of two different species of Pomoranthus plants: "In the fall of 1928, the author was able to identify a grafting chimera between Unshiu mandarin and P. trifoliata, which developed at the site of fusion of the scion with the scion after the scion, which had frozen in the winter of 1924, had been cut almost to the ground and had begun to regenerate. One of the regenerated shoots differed significantly from the typical shoots of P. trifoliata and Unshiu, as if combining features of both, which suggested that it had a periclinal-chimeric structure. The subsequent anatomical study confirmed this assumption, and it turned out that the internal component is P. trifoliata and the external component is Unshiu "1 .
The above excerpt from the article by A. I. Luss is a document proving that the vegetative hybrid, which Luss called “chimera”, was obtained by grafting mandarin Unshiu (Citrus unshiu Marc .) with trifoliata (Poncirus trifoliata Raf .). This plant is of great interest. It is still present at the urban section of the All-Union Sukhumi selection station of humid subtropical crops. At the station it was considered as an illustration of the chimeric theory, was considered to be fully studied and no research work was done with it. Only since 1947 we have been able to start studying this plant. The tree has a semi-bush form. The general appearance of the crown resembles most of all mandarins.
On normally growing branches, the thorns are from 1 to 5 cm long; they are similar in shape to the thorns that sometimes appear on individual branches and even on individual trees of Unshiu mandarin. On pruned branches (and sometimes even without pruning), branches similar in appearance to those of Unshiu mandarin, and branches resembling those of pure trifoliate, often appear. The bulk of the branches are intermediate in character, but some of them deviate to varying degrees either towards Unshiu mandarin or trifoliate. Leaves on intermediate shoots are small. The number of laminae on one leaf petiole is from 1 to 3, whereas mandarin leaves are uniplanate and trifoliate leaves are trifoliate ( Fig. 1 ) . Leaves often appear on intermediate shoots that have separate while mandarin leaves are single-plastinated and trifoliate leaves are triple-plastinated ( Fig. 1 ) . Leaves in which the individual laminae are not completely separated from each other often appear on intermediate shoots. In such leaves, the individual laminae do not sit directly on the petiole, but have one or two depressions of varying size at their margins, which give them the appearance of two- or, respectively, three-plate leaves. Such leaves are intermediate between the single-plate leaves of Unshiu mandarin and trifoliate trifoliate leaves. The pubescence on the shoots and leaves of the described plant is completely absent, as in Unshiu mandarin; the young leaves of trifoliate have characteristic pubescence. Leaves on branches of the intermediate type partially fall off for winter. The leaf petioles of the intermediate type vary in length more than those of the Unshiu mandarin or trifoliate and mostly have conspicuous bracts; pure trifoliate branches have pubescent leaves that fall off in the fall. These branches bloom in April almost simultaneously , or 2-3 days , or 2-3 days later than  1A. I. Luss , Introduction and selection of citrus fruits in the USSR , “Soviet subtropics” , 11 , 1935 . 2 Sometimes trifoliate forms with unusually large prickles are observed. Such forms are tetraploid . E 12 ΣΕ neighboring trees of true trifoliate . Flowers , 50 F. D. Mamporia.

During this period, research on our unusual citrus continued. Slowly, the period of Lysenkoism is coming to an end and the term chimera will appear again 1964 (6)

Therefore, chimera A is partially deciduous. Chimera trifoliata + mandarin Unshiu ( II ) is more deciduous (90-95 % of leaves fall off) than chimera trifoliata + orange ( II ), in which 15-20 % of leaves fall off. In leaves with mixed tissues, the difference between the two components is also noticeable in spring, when they are still young. Dark green spots are clearly visible on the overall light green background (Jaffa orange coloration). 1. Leaves of chimera trifoliate + Jaffa orange ( II ) in winter . The light-colored areas belong to trifoliate tissues . ( Trifoliate coloration ) . . Later, as the leaf ages .

And here you can see that the latest supporters of Lysenkoism are defending their views. Claiming that they have bred a new variety of “vegetative hybrid” 1965 (7)

he obtained from the study of two plants of different types from the intergeneric grafting of P. pomoranthus. A plant of one of these types, formed at the place of the usual grafting of mandarin on P. trifoliata, was found (1928) by A. I. Luss and named as early as 1935 as periclinal chimera, in which the internal component is allegedly P. trifoliata and the external component is mandarin.
Since 1947 we have been studying the said plant. In 1948, it produced a completely new type of shoot and was propagated separately. Although the latter plant deviates strongly from P. trifoliata in some respects, especially in its flanks, it resembles the mandarin, and was therefore called the three-leafed mandarin. A little later, a three-leafed mandarin plant was formed by grafting mandarin on P. trifoliata. Also in 1950, we obtained a plant of this type by grafting an orange onto P. trifoliata; it is called three-leafed orange 6. In 1952, again by grafting an orange on P. trifoliata, we obtained a plant of P. trifoliata, which completely reflects the type of plants discovered by A. I. Luss. It was described by us under the name “Michurin's Glory” in 1960.
7 . and orange Based on our data of genetic and cytological study of the sexual and vegetative progeny of the plant found by A. I. Luss, “Michurin's Glory”, three-leaf mandarin, we came to the conclusion that all of them are qualitatively definite forms of grafting hybrids and not chimeras. On this basis, we described in 1951 the A. I. Lussa plant and the three-leaf mandarin as two different forms of vegetative hybrids of mandarin with P. trifoliata, using the evidence then available to us 8 . It is the plant of A. I. Lussa, as well as the “Glory of Michurin” and analogous forms of grafting hybrids of citrus with P. trifoliata
5 “Agrobiologia” No 1, 1964, p. 77 . 77 .
6 A photograph of the process of formation of this plant was published by us in 1955 (“Agrobiologia” No 4 , p . 193 , Fig. 3 ) .
7 “ Agrobiologia ” No 4 , p . 517 .
8 F. D. Mamporia . Peculiarities of reproduction , growth , development and formosbra- citrus and some other pomeranian . Tbilisi, Gosizdat of the Georgian SSR , 1951 . 5. O. B. Lepeshinskaya . Origin of Cells from Living Substance and the Role of Living Substance in Organism , Moscow . , 1950 .

More research is being done after the rehabilitation of our discoverer, the chimera gets officially named Chimera Lussa the second known chimera of the USSR raised by the followers of Lysenkoism gets the name Slava Michurina ( 8 )

Glory of Michurin (orange Washington Navel X Poncirus trifoliata), Chimera Lussa (mandarin Unshiu X Poncirus trifoliata) and their initial components: orange Korolek 13 and Washington Navel (Citrus sinensis Osb. var. brasiliensis. Tan.), mandarin unschiu - variety Ovari ( Citrus unschiu Mags . ) , lemon Sochi 19515 ( Citrus junos Tan . var. juzu Tap . ) and Poncirus trifoliata ( Poncirus trifoliata Raff . ) . Dry matter content, sugars, total acidity, ascorbic acid and total flavonoids were determined. The average sample for analysis was taken in such a way that the weight of the material was at least 1000 g.
Lussa chimeras are close to Unshiu mandarin by the main biochemical parameters, although some of them are deviated, occupying an intermediate position. The sum of sugars is the same as that of Unshiu mandarin ( 6.6 % ) . The fruit is characterized by a significant amount of ascorbic acid (29.6 mg per 100 g).


Finally, in 1970, we learn the whole story of this unusual plant and read a sharp critique of the followers of Lysenkoism. By the way, we have an accurate description of the Lussa chimera, which, in my opinion, corresponds to the observations of those growing this plant today 1970 (9).


to the offspring of the so-called “vegetative hyorids”. In 1951. In 1951, Mamporia (3) stated that in the mandarin - “vegetative hybrid” (semi-leafy vegetative hybrid No 1), according to our scheme this form is a chimera of type A trifoliate + mandara Unshiu (11), "the seed progeny is mostly of purely mandarin type, which means intermediate forms between mandarin and trifoliate are obtained The production of such intermediate forms by sexual reproduction completely refutes the 1-dimensional theory of Winkler, Baur and other followers of pseudoscientific mendel morganism" (pg. 200). Much time has passed since then, and Mamporia with the ability of a “fine researcher”, as he calls himself, could have studied the causes of the formation of intergeneric hybrids in the offspring of the chimera seed. However, he did not do it, he remained on the same positions of dogmatism. He writes: " ... According to Winkler's chimeric theory, intergeneric chimeras cannot produce intergeneric hybrids by seed propagation" ( p. 167).
These include trifoliate + Shamuti orange ( III ) , trifoliate + stny orange ( II ) and two absolutely identical chimeras trifoliate + Unshiu mandarin ( 1 ) ( one of them was found in 1929 by A. N. Luss and the other in 1968 by N. Beridze ) . - N. Beridze ) . The chimera A plant is more frost-resistant than its cultivated parent; its fruits are similar (but not identical) to those of the cultivated component, but the yield of the chimera is much lower than that of the cultivated parent. For example, at the site of the State Variety Testing Commission, five-year-old plants of Slava Michurin (planted in 1964) have not yet borne fruit, while control plants of Washington Navedle orange gave an average of 1.3 kg of fruit. Another example: 8 trees of the same type of chimera tra foliata + mandarin Unshiu ( II ) planted in 1937 in the collection garden of Sukhumi Experimental Station of VIRA began to bear fruit in the 12th year.
In 1948, an average of 4 fruits were obtained from one tree, while the control, Unshiu broad-leaved mandarin of the same year of planting in the same orchard began to bear fruit in the second year, and the average yield for 1945-1949 was 288 fruits. Many fruits on this type of chimerical plant are set from summer flowering. By November the fruits from this flowering are small, a little larger than walnut, they have no economic value. Plants of chimera A, as it can be seen from the scheme, dechimerize "parental forms and chimera B. The degree of dechimerization depends on the growing conditions of the plant. About the dechimerization of “vegetative hybrid” Slava Michurin writes also Mamporia [ 13 ]: he believes that the variety can be good “with exemplary care according to the system developed by us” ( p. 521 ) .
Therefore, chimeras A cannot be a variety and have economic value. The negative features of chimeras of this type of Mamporiya chimeras were also revealed by the experience of introducing into production the chimera trifoliata + mandarin planted on his recommendation in the farms of Western Georgia, many plants of this chimera did not bear fruit for many years, and in the cold zone in the laundry of the cultivated part of the plants they “turned” into trifoliata and were planted in all farms. Even on the plots of Sukhumi experimental station (Chaladidi) and in Sukhumi (Voznesenovka), where
Mamporia worked, these plants were uprooted as having no economic value. TH Thus, Mamporia's hopes and promises of obtaining variety hybridization" were not justified. Therefore, in his last book, he put his hopes on seedlings obtained from chimeras and on nucellar seedlings. He writes: "Hybrid forms promising for the development of frost-tolerant citrus with high quality fruits can be obtained relatively easily by nucellar hybridization, whereas by sexual hybridization it is difficult. This is the great practical value of nucellar apomisis" ( p. 116 ) .
A legitimate question can be asked: if it is “easy”, why are there no varieties? After all, Momporia wrote about it as early as 1951 (see the quotations on page 161 of this article). Who is preventing the creation of frost- and malsex-resistant lemon varieties? As it turns out, the rules established by the State Commission for Variety Testing of Agricultural Crops are in the way. To circumvent them, in 1963, he proposes that "If production workers agree with our proposal and plant extensive production plantations with selected seedlings of the best citrus varieties, then vegetative generations of the best citrus varieties should be selected on these plantations after a comparative study of seedlings.



Further research on chimeras clarifies how the chimerization mechanism works in mandarins. More chimeras are successfully grown 1971 (10).


Within the same type, the forms of chimeras derived from trifoliata and citrus, irrespective of the species or variety of the latter, are very similar in many morphological and biological features The forms of different types of chimeras derived from the same components are sharply different. Thus, chimera P. trifoliata + C.sinensis II (type A) is similar to the same type of chimera P. trifoliata + C.unshiu II, but differs strongly from chimeras P. trifoliata + C.sinensis I (type B) and C. sinensis + P.trifoliata I (type C), which in turn differ from each other. Such parallel variability of chimeras of two genera within one type is related to the identity of the structural structure of the plant .
The study of three types of intergeneric chimeras has shown that the inner component of a chimeric plant generally determines the habitus of the crown, the character of branching, the shape and size of shoots, the shape and size of thorns. However, the external component of the chimera to a certain extent also influences the formation of all these traits. Thus. The epidermal layer of citrus in the chimera P. trifoliata + Citrus I has strongly changed the external appearance of the trifoliate: all organs of the chimera plant are much smaller than its own. The type of fruiting, pomological peculiarities (shape, size, etc.), and taste of the fruit
determine the component occupying the sub-epidermal (second - II) part of the plant.
layer, therefore edible fruits have chimeras of types A and B. In this case, the formation of these organs is largely influenced by the component of the inner layer of the chimera. The outer (first - I) component of the chimera creates the “lining” of vegetative organs and fruits. In the chimera P. trifoliata + Citrus II leaves are small, compound and simple, grayishly curved and somewhat twisted due to the great difference in the size and strength of growth of leaves of these initial components. In the fall, in some chimera leaves, the trifoliate (deciduous component of the chimera) portion of the leaf plate turns yellow, while the other citrus portion of the leaf plate turns yellow.



Everyone forgets about this story the last research I found is from 1979. After that there is only one mention in a study from Ukraine from 2014 (11).
The orange and mandarin chimeras, named ‘Glory of Michurin’ and ‘Lussa's Chimera’, have edible fruits.

And so ends the Soviet history of this remarkable plant. The further story is already told. It is not known how and when the plant found its way from Georgia to Professor Pospisil's collection in Prague, but this direction is not surprising, given the cooperation of the states. I for one still can't believe that this really happened. Even more unbelievable is the fact that this plant has been discussed on the Internet for many years and no one has connected the dots.
EDIT: At the bottom I left the original passages in Russian (I recommend translating using translators directly from that language instead of English) and the sources. If someone doesn't believe it because the story is too unbelievable, they can insert the passages in Russian into Google Books and verify the veracity of these quotes. (removed original quotes at moderator's request. if necessary, please write a private message)
I will try to collect these original articles as much as possible. They are currently scattered in libraries around the world. It would be worth scanning them and translating them. I suppose there are some nice drawings and diagrams. Then I'll try to compile a dataset of hardy chimeras and hybrids from the Soviet Union and slowly build up my own collection of plants. I hope with your help.

And finally we can write the plate of this unusual plant:
Chimera Lussa (Citrus unschiu Mags . x Poncirus trifoliata Raff . ) or +Citroponcirus 'Lussa' or ‘Химера Лусса’
Other incorrect names:
Citsuma Prague
+Citroponcirus 'Prague'

Origin: Georgia (I still have some confusion it could be Batumi, Sakhumi, New Aton based on a 1933 publication which is missing here)
Year of origin: 1924
Discoverer: Andrei Ivanovich Luss
Type: Chimera MMP ( it's L1-madarine L2- mandarin L3-Poncyria)



1)   Magazine title: Sovetskie subtropiki: ezhemesi͡achnyĭ nauchnyĭ 1935
Article title: Лусс А. И. Интродукция и селекция цитрусовых в СССР str 17-28


2)   Book: Теоретические основы селекции растений / Teoreticheskie osnovy selekt︠s︡ii rasteniĭ
Текст / Под общ. ред. акад. Н. И. Вавилова ; Наркомзем СССР. Всес. с.-х. акад. им. В. И. Ленина. Всес. ин-т растениеводства Общая селекция растений Т. 1
1935
Article title: 1А. И. Лусса «Вегетативные мутации» (77 страниц)  С. 215–292.
«Взаимоотношение подвоя и привоя» (63 страницы) С. 689–752.

3)   Magazine title: Советские субтропики Sovetskie subtropiki 1937, № 2
Article title: РЕЦЕНЗИИ page 121 https://elib.rgo.ru/handle/123456789/225912

4)   Book: Особенности воспроизведения, роста, развития и формообразования цитрусовых и некоторых других померанцевых / Ф.Д. Мампория ; М-во с.-х. СССР, Всес. Сухум. селекц. станция влажно-субтропич. Культур Тбилиси : Госиздат Груз. ССР, 1951.

5)   Book: Известия Российской академии наук: Серия биологическая Bulletin de l'Académie des Sciences de l'USSR. Série biologique / Izvestii︠a︡ Akademii nauk SSSR. Serii︠a︡ biologicheskai︠a︡ = Bulletin de l'Académie des Sciences de l'USSR. Série biologique 1952

6)   Magazine title: Агробиология - Number 145-150    1964

7)   Magazine title: Агробиология - Number 151-156 1965

8 )   Magazine title: Bi︠u︡lletenʹ Vsesoi︠u︡znogo ordena Lenina instituta rastenievodtsva imeni N.I. Vavilova Tomy 12–18 1968

9)   Magazine title: Генетика Genetika Tom VI No 7

10)   Book: Генетические основы селектсии растении Nikolaĭ Petrovich Dubinin 1971

11)   Book: В. М. Меженський, Л. О. Меженська, Б. Є. Якубенко НЕТРАДИЦІЙНІ ЯГІДНІ КУЛЬТУРИ 2014

Demo89:
original quotes removed at moderator's request

Millet:
Demo89,  please post only in English on this forum

BorisR:
Hello. Of course, we know about the chimeras created by Luss. It is known that there were other chimeras in the USSR. When the Prague chimera was discussed, it was suggested that it might have an origin from the Soviet Union. But there is no absolute proof. That is why it is called "Prague" after the first well-known place of distribution.

Ilya11:

--- Quote from: Demo89 on April 21, 2025, 03:08:08 PM ---Hello everyone! This is my first post. So far I have been looking at cold hardy citrus from a viewer position.

First of all, I would like to thank Sylvain and Snek for their efforts to the identification of this unusual plant. Thanks to them I became interested in the subject.

It was mainly their work that led me to the clue that is most likely the solution to this mystery.

I would like to ask you to confirm whether you agree that the Prague Chimera is in fact a Lussa Chimera  (Химера Лусса ).

For those not in the subject, I recommend that you learn the second part of the story told by Snek and Sylvain:
1)   https://citrusy.estranky.cz/fotoalbum/mrazuodolne-hybridy/hybrid-_unshiu-x-poncirus-trifoliata_/
2)   https://tropicalfruitforum.com/index.php?topic=23499.50
3)   https://citrusgrowersv2.proboards.com/thread/521/prague-chimera?page=2


--- End quote ---

Hello,
Thank you for posting this, could be of importance to those interested in intermingling of science and politics also of actuality now-days.
Funny enough, the data of MU Brno mentioned by Snek on the use  for fluorescent flow sorting conclude more on vegetative hybrid than  chimera. But as I mentioned,  it was  highly questionable since no pertinent control was done.

Also, I have Slava Michurina (Glory of Michurin) putative chimera. Got it many years ago from Zdenek Cernoch. In its shape there is nothing indicating the poncirus influence. Overall it is an early Washington type navel orange.
But the skin of its fruits  has some very strange smell, very different from any citrus I know. Could it be an example of DNA transfer in chimera that eventually lost all its poncirus cells?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page