论文部分内容阅读
长期以来,在我国栽培稻起源问题上,国内外学者持有许多不同的见解,这些见解集中反映在发源地、起源时代和稻种三个方面.就发源地问题来说,有主张来源于国外的.N.I.Vavilov(1950)断定起源于印度,中国及亚洲其他地区只是“第二中心地带”.其主要根据是印度不仅有普通的稻,并且有很多野生稻的变种.户(艹刈)义次、松尾孝岭认为来源于印度支那,因为中国稻的读音,与越南的稻的读音(Gao)是相同的,其传入的路线是先华南、西南,然后向北发展到华北.
For a long time, scholars at home and abroad hold many different opinions on the origin of cultivated rice in our country. These views are concentrated in three aspects: the place of origin, the age of origin and the type of rice. In terms of the place of origin, NIVavilov (1950) concludes that origins in India, China and other parts of Asia are only “secondary centers.” Its main basis is that India has not only ordinary rice but also many varieties of wild rice. Secondly, Matsudo Takayama thought it originated from Indo-China because the pronunciation of Chinese rice was the same as that of the Vietnamese rice. The route followed was South China and Southwest China, and then northward to North China.