gebir reproductive ecology and biology group · nicodemo et al. normal (2n = 60), 218 cytogenet...

9

Upload: others

Post on 14-Aug-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Gebir Reproductive Ecology and Biology Group · Nicodemo et al. normal (2n = 60), 218 Cytogenet Genome Res 2009;126:217—225 . Statistical Analysis The following statistics were
Page 2: Gebir Reproductive Ecology and Biology Group · Nicodemo et al. normal (2n = 60), 218 Cytogenet Genome Res 2009;126:217—225 . Statistical Analysis The following statistics were
Page 3: Gebir Reproductive Ecology and Biology Group · Nicodemo et al. normal (2n = 60), 218 Cytogenet Genome Res 2009;126:217—225 . Statistical Analysis The following statistics were
Page 4: Gebir Reproductive Ecology and Biology Group · Nicodemo et al. normal (2n = 60), 218 Cytogenet Genome Res 2009;126:217—225 . Statistical Analysis The following statistics were
Page 5: Gebir Reproductive Ecology and Biology Group · Nicodemo et al. normal (2n = 60), 218 Cytogenet Genome Res 2009;126:217—225 . Statistical Analysis The following statistics were
Page 6: Gebir Reproductive Ecology and Biology Group · Nicodemo et al. normal (2n = 60), 218 Cytogenet Genome Res 2009;126:217—225 . Statistical Analysis The following statistics were
Page 7: Gebir Reproductive Ecology and Biology Group · Nicodemo et al. normal (2n = 60), 218 Cytogenet Genome Res 2009;126:217—225 . Statistical Analysis The following statistics were
Page 8: Gebir Reproductive Ecology and Biology Group · Nicodemo et al. normal (2n = 60), 218 Cytogenet Genome Res 2009;126:217—225 . Statistical Analysis The following statistics were
Page 9: Gebir Reproductive Ecology and Biology Group · Nicodemo et al. normal (2n = 60), 218 Cytogenet Genome Res 2009;126:217—225 . Statistical Analysis The following statistics were