Mendel no mendelian?

History of Science

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 1979, Pages 53-72

  Olby, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0003121461     PISSN: 00732753     EISSN: 17538564     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/007327537901700103     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Pontecorvo G., “Template and stepwise processes in heredity”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, cliv (1966), 167–9, pp. 167 and 169.
2. de Beer Gavin Sir, “Mendel, Darwin and the centre of science”, The listener, lxxiii (1965), 364.
3. de Beer Gavin Sir, “Genetics: The centre of science”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, clxiv (1966), 154–166, p. 154.
4. Darbishire A. D., Breeding and the Mendelian controversy (London, 1911), 189.
5. Nemec B., “Before Mendel”, in KrizeneckyJ.,(ed.), Fundamenta genetica (Osterhout and Brno, 1965), 13 (henceforth referred to as Fundamenta).
6. Eiseley L., Darwin's century. Evolution and the men who discovered it (London, 1959), 206, 207.
7. Gillispie C. C., The edge of objectivity. An essay in the history of scientific ideas (Princeton, 1960), 339.
8. Glass B., “A century of biochemical genetics”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, cix (1965), 227–236, p. 227.
9. Bateson W., Mendel's principles of heredity (Cambridge, 1909), 314.
10. Eiseley L., op. cit. (ref. 6): Title of ch. viii.
11. Forman P., “The discovery of the diffraction of X-rays by crystals; a critique of the myths”, Archive for history of exact sciences, vi (1969), 38–71.
12. Forman, op. cit. (ref. 11), 68.
13. Ewald P. P., “The myth of myths: Comments on P. Forman's paper on ‘The discovery of the diffraction of X-rays in crystals’”, Archive for history of exact sciences, vi (1969), 72–81.
14. See his report of the result of crossing normal with peloric Antirrhinums as 88 normal, 2 intermediate, 37 peloric in F2. If the second group could be ignored the first and last give a Mendelian ratio. Darwin interpreted this result in terms of two opposed tendencies, the relative strengths of which changed from the first hybrid generation to the second. Darwin C. R., The variation of animals and plants under domestication (London, 1868), ii, 70–71. This experiment was discussed by Bateson W. Saunders E. R., “Experimental studies in the physiology of heredity”, Reports to the evolution committee of the Royal Society, i (1902), 1–160, p. 25.
15. Iltis H., The life of Mendel, trans. by Paul E. Paul C. (London, 1932; reprinted, 1966), 179.
16. Eiseley, op. cit. (ref. 6), 211.
17. Stent G. S., “Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery”, Scientific American, ccxxvii (1972), 84–93, p. 84.
18. Bateson Saunders, op. cit. (ref. 14), 6.
19. Bateson, op. cit. (ref. 9), 316.
20. Iltis, op. cit. (ref. 15), 9.
21. Iltis, op. cit. (ref. 15), 206.
22. Hayes W., “Sex factors and viruses”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, clxiv (1966), 230–45, p. 230.
23. Gaissinovitch A. E., “An early account of G. Mendel's work in Russia (I. F. Shmalhausen)”, in SosnaM.,(ed.), G. Mendel memorial symposium 1865–1965 (Prague, 1966), 39–40.
24. Olby R. C., “Mendel's precursors and contemporaries in genetics” (D. Phil. thesis, Oxford, 1962).
25. Roberts H. F., Plant hybridization before Mendel (New York, 1929; reprinted, New York, 1965).
26. Olby R. C., Origins of Mendelism (London, 1966; New York, 1967).
27. Olby R. C., “Franz Unger and the Weiner Kirchenzeitung: An attack on one of Mendel's teachers by the editor of a Catholic newspaper”, Folia Mendeliana, ii (1967), 21–37, p. 34.
28. There was one eminent exception— Sinoto Y., “Mendel's two papers on genetics, considered from the standpoint of evolution”, Folia Mendeliana vi (1971), 151–5.
29. Callender L. A., This statement is based on a summary of Calender's M. Phil. thesis at Ulster College. The author is grateful to Mr. Callender for showing him the summary and he awaits the completion of the thesis with much interest.
30. Darlington C. D., Genetics and man (London, 1964), 98.
31. Correns C., “G. Mendel's law concerning the behaviour of progeny of varietal hybrids”, trans. by Piternick L. K. in Stern C. Sherwood E. R. (eds), The origins of genetics. A Mendel source-book (San Francisco and London, 1966; referred to henceforth as Source-book), 130. The original German text will be found in Fundamenta, 111.
32. Mendel G., “Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden”, in Fundamenta, 78. This definitive version of Mendel's paper incorporates corrections to the text of the Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Vereines in Brunn, x (1865), 3–47, based on the surviving (1941) photographed copy of Mendel's manuscript.
33. Mendel, Fundamenta, 88 and 89.
34. See for example Bateson Saunders, op. cit. (ref. 14), 12, where germ cells may be “incapable of transmitting the opposite character”. Also Hugo de Vries: “Of the two antagonistic characteristics, the hybrid carries only one …”, in “The law of segregation of hybrids”, trans. by Stern E. in Source-book, 110. Punnett R. C. Remarked of Mendel's theory, “A given gamete could carry tallness or dwarfness, but not both. The two were mutually exclusive so far as the gamete was concerned” (Mendelism (London, 1912), 18–19).
35. Bateson Saunders, op. cit. (ref. 14), 126.
36. Bateson, op. cit. (ref. 9), 11; Crew F. A. E., The foundations of genetics (London, 1966), 37; Darbishire A. D., op. cit. (ref. 4), 178f.
37. Olby, op. cit. (ref. 25), 139.
38. Krizenecky J., in Fundamenta, 25.
39. Darlington C. D., op. cit. (ref. 29), 95.
40. Mendel G., in Source-book, 35. German text in Fundamenta, 83.
41. Darlington C. D. Mather K., The elements of genetics (London, 1st ed., 1949). Shows only the Notizblatt manuscript. The second edition, 1950, includes the caption: “It has been pointed out to us by Professor R. A. Fisher, that the figures on this page of Mendel's notes suggest factor interaction. Thus the ratio of 343:92:166 in the middle of the page suggests the 9:3:4 ratio characteristic of an F3 segregation for two genes related in action by recessive epistasy…. If this inference of epistasy is correct, the results were perhaps from beans rather than from peas….”.
42. This is the author's summary of the explanation given by Heimans J., “Ein Notizblatt aus dem Nachlass Gregor Mendels mit Analysen eines seiner Kreuzungsversuche”, Folia Mendeliana, iv (1968), 5–36. Also see: Heimans, “Mendel's ideas on the nature of hereditary characters. The explanation of fragmentary records of Mendel's hybridizing experiments”, Folia Mendeliana, vi (1971), 91–98.
43. Bateson Saunders, op. cit. (ref. 14), 126.
44. Bateson Saunders, op. cit. (ref. 14), 146.
45. Richter O., “Johann Gregor Mendel wie er wirklich war”, Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Vereines in Brunn, lxxiv (1943), 93–99.
46. See ref. 41.
47. This is the author's summary of the argument of J. Heimans, op. cit. (ref. 42).
48. From a summary of conclusions given to the author by Professor Heimans.
49. Heimans, op. cit. (ref. 42), 6.
50. From a summary of conclusions given to the author by Professor Heimans.
51. Source-book, 5; “das Gesetz zu ermitteln”, Fundamenta, 60.
52. Sherwood writes “Possess constant differing traits”, Source-book, 3; “Konstant differirende Merkmale besitzen”, Fundamenta, 58. Here “Konstant” is an adverb. Sherwood translates it elsewhere correctly as “constantly”. Mendel was referring to the constancy of the difference in expression of the trait.
53. Source-book, 9; “jene Merkmale, welche ganz oder fast unverändert … übergehen”, Fundamenta, 63. On this passage Darlington commented, “Mendel spoke of characters being dominant, whereas (as we think) strictly it is the determinant that is dominant” (Darlington, op. cit. (ref. 29), 95).
54. von Gaertner C., Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Bastarderzeugung im Pflanzenreich, mit Hinweisung auf die ähnlichhen Erscheinungen im Theirreiche (Stuttgart, 1849), 251. Translated in Olby, op. cit. (ref. 25), 159–160.
55. See for instance, the opening words in the Section introducing di- and tri-hybrid crosses: “The next task consisted in investigating whether the law of development thus found would also apply to a pair of differing traits …” (Source-book, 17; “ob das gefundene Entwicklungsgesetze auch …”, Fundamenta, 69).
56. Source-book, 16; Fundamenta, 68.
57. Source-book, 32: “das für Pisum gefundene Entwicklungsgesetz”, Fundamenta, 80. See also, “the law valid for Pisum”, Source-book, 35; “dem für Pisum geltenden Gesetze erklären lassen”, Fundamenta, 83. The only reference to “laws” in the plural in the Source-book translation is on p. 89, and comes from “Die Geltung der für Pisum aufgestellten Sätze …”, Fundamenta, 89. This phrase might be better translated: “The validity of the propositions advanced for Pisum.”.
58. This mode of expression is referred to by Mendel in numerous places: Source-book, 16, 22, 29, 32.
59. Source-book, 22; Fundamenta, 72.
60. Source-book, 23–32; Fundamenta, 74–80.
61. Source-book, 37; “… für die Veränderlichkeit der Kulturgewächse ein Faktor thätig ist …”, Fundamenta, 84.
62. This is closer to the German than Sherwood's rendering in Source-book, 24: ”… vollkommen gleich Faktoren zusammenwirken”, Fundamenta, 74.
63. “… wenn die Keimzellen und der befruchtende Pollen gleichartig, somit beide mit der Anlage ausgerüstet sind …”, Fundamenta, 74.
64. This is the author's translation. For Sherwood's rendering see Source-book, 42. “Diese Entwicklung erfolgt nach einem konstantem Gestetz, welches in der materiellen Beschaffenheit und Anordnung der Elemente begründet ist, die in der Zelle zur lebensfähigen Vereinigung gelangten”, Fundamenta, 88.
65. “So müssen wir annehmen, dass zwischen jenen Elementen beide Zellen, welche die gegenseitigen Unterschiede bedingen, irgend eine Ausgleichung stattfindet”, Fundamenta, 88. For Sherwood's translation see Sourcebook, 42.
66. “Bei der Bildung dieser Zellen beteiligen sich alle vorhandenen Elemente in völlig freier und gleichmässiger Anordung, wobei nur die differierenden sich gegenseitig ausschliessen”, Fundamenta, 88. For Sherwood's translation see Source-book, 43.
67. “In this manner, the production of as many kinds of germinal and pollen cells would be possible as there are combinations of potentially formative elements”, Source-book, 43; Fundamenta, 89. And earlier in the paper he wrote, “… in the ovaries of hybrids as many kinds of germinal cells [germinal vesicles], and in the anthers as many kinds of pollen cells are formed as there are possibilities for constant combination forms and that these germinal and pollen cells correspond in their internal make-up to the individual forms”, Source-book, 24; “… und dass diese Keim- und Pollenzellen ihrer inneren Beschaffenheit nach den einzelnen Formen entsprechen”, Fundamenta, 74.
68. Source-book, 42; “nur die differierenden sich gegenseitig ausschliessen”, Fundamenta, 88.
69. This point, not as far as the author is aware made by Professor Heimans, seems decisive against any claim that Mendel had a conception of the gene.
70. Source-book, 30; “jede Pollenform A and a gleich oft mit jeder Keimzell-form A und a vereinigt”, Fundamenta, 78.
71. Fisher R. A., The genetical theory of natural selection (2nd ed., London, 1958), 9. This passage is not in the first edition.
72. When the author presented Professor Heimans's paper at the Mendel Colloquium, “Mendel's ideas on the nature of hereditary characters …” (see ref. 42), he issued the challenge: “Where in Mendel's paper do we find the concept of 2, and only 2, mutually exclusive factors or elements …”, from the Discussion in Folia Mendeliana, vi (1971), 146. No participant responded. It should, however, be noted that in England Heimans's position had been arrived at independently by Bennet A. J., “Mendel's Laws?”, School science review, xlvi (1964), 35–42, p. 37.
73. Darden L., “Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the discovery of segregation”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, vii (1976), 127–79.
74. Callender, op. cit. (ref. 27).