SL number Reference number Number of genotypes used and clusters formed Measures of genetic diversity Conclusion 1 [89 ] 49 and 3 Mahalanobis (1936) and Tocher (1956) (1) Presence of distinct diversity. (2) Breeds derived from the same parents were included in different clusters. (3) Breeds derived from the same source were included in the same cluster. 2 [23 ] 32 and 7 Mahalanobis (1936) and Tocher Geographical diversity did not contribute much to genetic diversity. 3 [14 ] 15 and 5 Mahalanobis (1936) and Tocher (1956) (1) Enough diversity present. (2) Suggested for making crosses between different clusters. 4 [116 ] 50 and 5 Mahalanobis (1936) and Tocher (1956) Cluster III was the largest, consisting of 34 strains. The clusters are compared for various features influencing silk production. 5 [15 ] 18 and 8 Mahalanobis (1936) and Tocher (1956) Breeds derived from the same ancestry were included in different clusters and those of different genetic background occupied a single cluster. 6 [20 ] 25 and 6 Mahalanobis (1936) and Tocher (1956) The genetically divergent parents were grouped into four classes. 7 [18 ] 30 and 5 Mahalonobis'
values (Ward's minimum variance) Geographical diversity though important is not the determining factor for genetic divergence. 8 [24 ] 24 and 7 Mahalanobis (1936) and Tocher Genotypes of temperate and tropical origin formed separate clusters. 9 [117 ] 11 and 3 Mahalanobis (1936) and Tocher (1956) The intracluster distance ranged from 0.00 to 1689.37 implying the prevalence of substantial amount of intracluster diversity. 10 [21 ] 22 and 6 Mahalonobis'
values (Ward's minimum variance.) There is no relation between geographical diversity and genetic diversity. 11 [118 ] 65 and 9 Mahalonobis'
values (Ward's minimum variance) Breeds in the optimum distance obtained cluster can be used in the conventional silkworm breeding programme to improve silk quality. 12 [119 ] 47 and 12 Mahalonobis'
values (Ward's minimum variance) Geographic diversity had no association with genetic diversity. 13 [120 ] 51 and 2 UPGMA Clusters of individuals exhibited high internal (within clusters) homogeneity and high external (between clusters) heterogeneity. 14 [121 ] 16 and 3 Mahalanobis (1936), UPGMA The strains of the same origin did not group together, demonstrating they can have different biological and development performance. 15 [122 ] 8 and 5 Mahalanobis (1936), UPGMA Genetic distance and not the geographic diversity is to be considered while identifying parents for hybridization programme. 16 [16 ] 21 and 7 Mahalanobis (1936) and Tocher (1956) Silkworm genotypes originating from the same geographical regions fell in one cluster. 17 [17 ] 56 and 8 Mahalanobis (1936) and Tocher (1956) Silkworm genotypes originating from different geographical regions fell in one cluster while those originating from a single region fell in different clusters. 18 [123 ] 51 and 4 Hierarchical agglomerative clustering UPGMA Inclusion of genotypes of the same origin in different clusters clearly indicates the presence of considerable genetic diversity among the populations. 19 [19 ] 19 and 3 The hierarchical cluster analysis using Euclidian distance Cluster analysis and conformity with the variability in the performance of the genotypes for different traits. Geographic diversity had no association with genetic diversity. 20 [124 ] 4 and 2 UPGMA method (Sokal and Michener) The optimum level of genetic distance is necessary to obtain heterosis.
