The hereditary statistics of Hugo de Vries

Acta Botanica Neerlandica

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 427-463

  Zevenhuizen, Erik ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Hugo de Vries; Mendel's laws; Mutation theory; Pangenesis

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032464296     PISSN: 00445983     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (117)

1. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
2. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
3. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
4. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
5. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
6. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
7. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
8. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
9. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
10. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
11. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
12. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
13. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
14. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
15. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
16. 2); Onno G. Meijer, 'Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?', Annals of Science 42: (1985) 189-232; A.F. Corcos and F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work I. Was De Vries really an independent discoverer of Mendel?', Journal of Heredity 76: (1985) 187-190; A.F. Corcos en F.V. Monaghan, 'Role of De Vries in the rediscovery of Mendel's work II. Did De Vries really understand Mendel's paper?', Journal of Heredity 78: (1987) 275-276; Bert Theunissen, 'Closing the door on Hugo de Vries' Mendelism', Annals of Science 51: (1994) 225-248; I.H. Stamhuis, O.G. Meijer and E.J.A. Zevenhuizen, 'Hugo de Vries 1889-1903: the trauma of Intracellular Pangenesis', accepted for publication in Isis 1999. Stomps, Jahn, Heimans, Darden, Van der Pas and Stamhuis think De Vries was an independent rediscoverer, all the other authors deny this for various reasons.
17. Notebooks from the years 1886-89 are present and have another structure (Library of the Biological Centre, University of Amsterdam: Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 152-155). Surviving pages from an index to the Journalen start with the Journal of 1889 (Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 527; Library of the Biological Centre, University of Amsterdam: Archive of the director of the Hortus Botanicus Amsterdam (1874) 1878-1969 (1977), folder 'Militaire zaken').
18. Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 179-181.
19. The cover of the Journaal of 1899 is present in Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 177. The pages from the Journalen are present in Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 523 (Journaal 1892), 527 (1895), 533 (1896), 143 (1898) and 144 (probably 1899/ 1900).
20. The allegation that De Vries destroyed his notes in order to disguise the fact that he had not independently rediscovered Mendel's laws is mere speculation (Meijer (n. 1) 'Hugo de Vries', 217). My impression from the De Vries archive is that destroying and reusing paper was just his common practice.
21. These notes were found by the present author in August 1992 during the inventarization of the archive of De Vries. The archive had been searched through earlier, but surprisingly enough, the notes had escaped the attention of earlier researchers.
22. Hugo de Vries, Intracellulare Pangenesis (Jena, 1889).
23. Hugo de Vries, Intracellular Pangenesis (Chicago, 1910); translated by C. Stuart Gager; Hugo de Vries, Intracellulaire Pangenesis (Amsterdam, 1918); translated by F. van Hengelaar. I must confess that I have not compared these translations with the original German text, but judging from the contents, the introductions and (in the English translation) the incidential remarks of De Vries and the translator in footnotes, I assume that they are close translations.
24. Hugo de Vries, Intracellular Pangenesis (Chicago, 1910); translated by C. Stuart Gager; Hugo de Vries, Intracellulaire Pangenesis (Amsterdam, 1918); translated by F. van Hengelaar. I must confess that I have not compared these translations with the original German text, but judging from the contents, the introductions and (in the English translation) the incidential remarks of De Vries and the translator in footnotes, I assume that they are close translations.
25. Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 146 (page 124).
26. Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication (London, 1868; 2 vols.) II, chapter 27.
27. Hugo de Vries, De Invloed der Temperatuur op de Levensverschijnselen der Planten (The Hague, 1870).
28. The origin of Intracellulare Pangenesis as it appears from letters of De Vries to Moll is discussed by Stamhuis (n. 1) 'Trauma'.
29. For instance in the chapter 'Die gegenseitige Unabhängigkeit der erblichen Eigenschaften' of Intracellulare Pangenesis on page 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24-25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32.
30. De Vries (n. 7) Intracellulare Pangenesis, 9.
31. De Vries (n. 7) Intracellulare Pangenesis, 69. See also pages 46 and 188.
32. De Vries (n. 7) Intracellulare Pangenesis, 73.
33. The English edition of 1910 (n. 8) has an advertisement for the original German edition. See also the preface in the Dutch translation of 1918 (n. 8).
34. For a contemporary survey, see: Yves Delage, La Structure du Protoplasma et les Théories sur l'Hérédité et les Grands Problèmes de la Biologie Générale (Paris, 1895).
35. For instance: Hugo de Vries, Die Mutationstheorie (2 vols. Leipzig, 1901-03) II, 691-692: 'Für mich ist die Pangenesis immer der Ausgangspunkt meines Suchens gewesen'; De Vries (n. 8) Intracellular Pangenesis, 74: In a note to the translator, De Vries says: 'That sentence [An altered numerical relation of the pangens already present, and the formation of new kinds of pangens must form the two main factors of variability] has since become the basis of the experiments described in my Mutationstheorie'; Hugo de Vries, 'Mutations in heredity', The Rice Institue Pamphlet 1: (1915) 340: 'On the basis of these theoretical considerations [Darwin's provisional hypothesis of pangenesis - EZ] I proposed the mutation theory'; Hugo de Vries, 'The origin of the mutation theory', The Monist 27: (1917) 406, 409: 'My book on the mutation theory is the combination of all these preliminary studies into a regular discussion of the main principle'.
36. For instance: Hugo de Vries, Die Mutationstheorie (2 vols. Leipzig, 1901-03) II, 691-692: 'Für mich ist die Pangenesis immer der Ausgangspunkt meines Suchens gewesen'; De Vries (n. 8) Intracellular Pangenesis, 74: In a note to the translator, De Vries says: 'That sentence [An altered numerical relation of the pangens already present, and the formation of new kinds of pangens must form the two main factors of variability] has since become the basis of the experiments described in my Mutationstheorie'; Hugo de Vries, 'Mutations in heredity', The Rice Institue Pamphlet 1: (1915) 340: 'On the basis of these theoretical considerations [Darwin's provisional hypothesis of pangenesis - EZ] I proposed the mutation theory'; Hugo de Vries, 'The origin of the mutation theory', The Monist 27: (1917) 406, 409: 'My book on the mutation theory is the combination of all these preliminary studies into a regular discussion of the main principle'.
37. For instance: Hugo de Vries, Die Mutationstheorie (2 vols. Leipzig, 1901-03) II, 691-692: 'Für mich ist die Pangenesis immer der Ausgangspunkt meines Suchens gewesen'; De Vries (n. 8) Intracellular Pangenesis, 74: In a note to the translator, De Vries says: 'That sentence [An altered numerical relation of the pangens already present, and the formation of new kinds of pangens must form the two main factors of variability] has since become the basis of the experiments described in my Mutationstheorie'; Hugo de Vries, 'Mutations in heredity', The Rice Institue Pamphlet 1: (1915) 340: 'On the basis of these theoretical considerations [Darwin's provisional hypothesis of pangenesis - EZ] I proposed the mutation theory'; Hugo de Vries, 'The origin of the mutation theory', The Monist 27: (1917) 406, 409: 'My book on the mutation theory is the combination of all these preliminary studies into a regular discussion of the main principle'.
38. For instance: Hugo de Vries, Die Mutationstheorie (2 vols. Leipzig, 1901-03) II, 691-692: 'Für mich ist die Pangenesis immer der Ausgangspunkt meines Suchens gewesen'; De Vries (n. 8) Intracellular Pangenesis, 74: In a note to the translator, De Vries says: 'That sentence [An altered numerical relation of the pangens already present, and the formation of new kinds of pangens must form the two main factors of variability] has since become the basis of the experiments described in my Mutationstheorie'; Hugo de Vries, 'Mutations in heredity', The Rice Institue Pamphlet 1: (1915) 340: 'On the basis of these theoretical considerations [Darwin's provisional hypothesis of pangenesis - EZ] I proposed the mutation theory'; Hugo de Vries, 'The origin of the mutation theory', The Monist 27: (1917) 406, 409: 'My book on the mutation theory is the combination of all these preliminary studies into a regular discussion of the main principle'.
39. P.W. van der Pas, 'The Correspondence of Hugo de Vries and Charles Darwin', Janus 57: (1970) 200.
40. Hugo de Vries, 'Beschouwingen over het verbeteren van de rassen onzer cultuurplanten', part 14, Maandblad van de Hollandsche Maatschappij van Landbouw 1886-1889. The papers 1-16 were written in April-Aug. 1886 (see De Vries' own copy in Library of the Biological Centre, University of Amsterdam).
41. Adolphe Quetelet, Anthropométrie (Brussels, 1870). On Quetelet's work and the influence of statistics in science, see Ida H. Stamhuis, 'De "probabilistic revolution" in de wetenschappen', Gewina 15: (1992) 141-152.
42. Adolphe Quetelet, Anthropométrie (Brussels, 1870). On Quetelet's work and the influence of statistics in science, see Ida H. Stamhuis, 'De "probabilistic revolution" in de wetenschappen', Gewina 15: (1992) 141-152.
43. Handelingen van het Eerste Nederlandsch Natuuren Geneeskundig Congres (Haarlem, 1888) 126, 133-138.
44. P. van Oye, Hugo de Vries, Julius MacLeod en Edward Verschaffelt. Vriendschap en Wederkerige Invloed (Brussels, 1961) 7-12.
45. According to Van Oye, Hugo de Vries was very sceptical in the late 1880s when MacLeod introduced him to Quetelet's work. His appreciation grew slowly until 1894, when he was at last totally convinced of its value and even became one of its strongest advocates 'as a new convert usually does' (Van Oye (n. 24) Hugo de Vries, 6-7, 16-17). Van Oye points to the fact that statistics only gradually enter De Vries' publications, that he was older and 'more calm' than MacLeod and besides, 'the character of De Vries prevented him from being convinced easily' (Van Oye (n. 24) Hugo de Vries, 3).
46. Hugo de Vries, 'Über halbe Galton-Curven als Zeichen discontinuirlicher Variation', Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 12: (1894) 201, 203; De Vries (n. 21) 'Beschouwingen', part 2 (this paper was written in the spring of 1886, as is stated by De Vries in his own copy, present in Library of the Biological Centre, University of Amsterdam). In 'Über halbe Galton-Curven', 203, De Vries states that he counted the number of petals of Ranunculus bulbosus in 1886 and 1887 'um die Curve zu ermitteln'. However, in 'Beschouwingen' there is no mentioning whatsoever of curves or the law of Quetelet when De Vries discusses variation. His picturing of the target-like distribution of variants makes it clear that De Vries did not know the Gaussian curve as a representation of continuous variation and hence the work of Quetelet in the spring of 1886. In De Vries (n. 19) 'Origin', 406, he says that after the publication of Intracellulare Pangenesis 'I chanced to meet with Quetelet's Anthropométrie'.
47. Hugo de Vries, 'Über halbe Galton-Curven als Zeichen discontinuirlicher Variation', Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 12: (1894) 201, 203; De Vries (n. 21) 'Beschouwingen', part 2 (this paper was written in the spring of 1886, as is stated by De Vries in his own copy, present in Library of the Biological Centre, University of Amsterdam). In 'Über halbe Galton-Curven', 203, De Vries states that he counted the number of petals of Ranunculus bulbosus in 1886 and 1887 'um die Curve zu ermitteln'. However, in 'Beschouwingen' there is no mentioning whatsoever of curves or the law of Quetelet when De Vries discusses variation. His picturing of the target-like distribution of variants makes it clear that De Vries did not know the Gaussian curve as a representation of continuous variation and hence the work of Quetelet in the spring of 1886. In De Vries (n. 19) 'Origin', 406, he says that after the publication of Intracellulare Pangenesis 'I chanced to meet with Quetelet's Anthropométrie'.
48. Hugo de Vries, 'Suikerriet zaaien', Album der Natuur (1890) 235: 'Elke eigenschap is variabel, maar de grenzen, waarbinnen zij varieert, kunnen nu eens zeer wijd dan weer zeer eng zijn. . . . Binnen de bedoelde grenzen vindt het varieeren volgens eene bepaalde wet plaats. Men noemt deze de wet van Quetelet. Hoe algemeen zij geldt, is nog niet onderzocht, maar zij geldt in elk geval voor die eigenschappen, die in cijfers kunnen worden uitgedrukt. . . . Het uitvoerigst vindt men deze wet behandeld in Wallace's jongste boek over het Darwinisme, waar zij door tal van voorbeelden, aan het dierenrijk ontleend, is toegelicht' (Each character is variable, but the boundaries within it varies can sometimes be very wide, sometimes be very narrow. . . . Within the boundaries in question the variation takes place according to a certain law. It is called the Law of Quetelet. How general it is has not yet been investigated, but in any case it holds good for all those characters that can be expressed in numbers. . . . The most elaborate treatment of this law one finds in Wallace's latest book on Darwinism, where it is illustrated by many examples, taken from the animal kingdom). De Vries then goes on to illustrate the law by the number of rows on cobs of corn. Quetelet is not mentioned by Wallace in his book Darwinism (London, 1889). The examples given by Wallace are expressed in curves drawn according to a simplified version of the method of Francis Galton. This gives me the impression that De Vries had not yet studied Wallace's book when he wrote his paper 'Suikerriet zaaien'. In his discussion of Quetelet's work in Die Mutationstheorie I, 35 he states that Wallace discussed this law 'nur in unvollständiger Weise'. De Vries' own copy of Wallace's work (second edition, reprinted in August and October 1889) is in the Library of the Biological Centre, University of Amsterdam. In Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 441 is an offprint of 'Suikerriet zaaien' which, in De Vries' handwriting, bears the date '1 juni 1890' (1 June 1890). This probably is the date when the paper was published.
49. The Helianthus experiment is mentioned in De Vries (n. 26) 'Über halbe Galton-Curven', 202. The Oenothera experiment appears from Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 146 A and the lecture plate which is in University Museum De Agnietenkapel of the University of Amsterdam, cat. no. 076.577.
50. De Vries (n. 19) Mutationstheorie I, 377-411.
51. De Vries (n. 26) 'Über halbe Galton-Curven'.
52. Hugo de Vries, 'Over het omkeeren van halve Galton-curven', Botanisch Jaarboek 10: (1898) 27-61.
53. Hugo de Vries, 'Eine zweigipflige Variationscurve', Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik der Organizmen 2: (1895) 52-62; Hugo de Vries, 'Über Curvenselection bei Chrysanthemum segetum', Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 17: (1899) 84-98.
54. Hugo de Vries, 'Eine zweigipflige Variationscurve', Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik der Organizmen 2: (1895) 52-62; Hugo de Vries, 'Über Curvenselection bei Chrysanthemum segetum', Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 17: (1899) 84-98.
55. According to Van Oye (n. 24) Hugo de Vries, 17, the collaboration with Verschaffelt was the decisive factor for De Vries' 'conversion' to the statistical approach. However, Verschaffelt had not published on variation before he became an assistent, so it might just as well be that De Vries stimulated Verschaffelt.
56. W.F.R. Weldon, 'The variations occurring in certain decapod Crustacea - I, Crangon vulgaris', Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 47: (1890) 445-453.
57. This note is present in Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 156.
58. Central Library of the State University Groningen: letter of Hugo de Vries to J.W. Moll, Nov. 17, 1893: 'Bezit je ook boeken van Galton, Hereditary genius enz. Ik kan ze hier niet vinden en zou ze graag lezen' (Do you happen to possess books by Galton, Heriditary Genius, etc. I can not find them here and I would like to read them).
59. De Vries (n. 26) 'Über halbe Galton-Curven'.
60. 3) 294-296. It is not known when De Vries wrote this new passage. The preface of the book is dated February, 1895. The second edition was published in 1885, the first one in 1880.
61. De Vries (n. 32) 'Zweigipflige Variationscurve'; Hugo de Vries, 'Sur les courbes Galtoniennes des monstruosités', Bulletin Scientifique de France et Belgique 27: (1896) 395-413; Hugo de Vries, 'Eenheid in veranderlijkheid', Album der natuur (1898) 65-80; De Vries (n. 31) 'Over het omkeeren'; De Vries (n. 32) 'Über Curvenselection'; Hugo de Vries, 'Alimentation et sélection', Volume Jubilaire de la Société Biologique de Paris (Paris, 1899) 17-39; Hugo de Vries, 'Othonna crassifolia', Botanisch Jaarboek 12: (1900) 20-40.
62. De Vries (n. 32) 'Zweigipflige Variationscurve'; Hugo de Vries, 'Sur les courbes Galtoniennes des monstruosités', Bulletin Scientifique de France et Belgique 27: (1896) 395-413; Hugo de Vries, 'Eenheid in veranderlijkheid', Album der natuur (1898) 65-80; De Vries (n. 31) 'Over het omkeeren'; De Vries (n. 32) 'Über Curvenselection'; Hugo de Vries, 'Alimentation et sélection', Volume Jubilaire de la Société Biologique de Paris (Paris, 1899) 17-39; Hugo de Vries, 'Othonna crassifolia', Botanisch Jaarboek 12: (1900) 20-40.
63. De Vries (n. 32) 'Zweigipflige Variationscurve'; Hugo de Vries, 'Sur les courbes Galtoniennes des monstruosités', Bulletin Scientifique de France et Belgique 27: (1896) 395-413; Hugo de Vries, 'Eenheid in veranderlijkheid', Album der natuur (1898) 65-80; De Vries (n. 31) 'Over het omkeeren'; De Vries (n. 32) 'Über Curvenselection'; Hugo de Vries, 'Alimentation et sélection', Volume Jubilaire de la Société Biologique de Paris (Paris, 1899) 17-39; Hugo de Vries, 'Othonna crassifolia', Botanisch Jaarboek 12: (1900) 20-40.
64. De Vries (n. 32) 'Zweigipflige Variationscurve'; Hugo de Vries, 'Sur les courbes Galtoniennes des monstruosités', Bulletin Scientifique de France et Belgique 27: (1896) 395-413; Hugo de Vries, 'Eenheid in veranderlijkheid', Album der natuur (1898) 65-80; De Vries (n. 31) 'Over het omkeeren'; De Vries (n. 32) 'Über Curvenselection'; Hugo de Vries, 'Alimentation et sélection', Volume Jubilaire de la Société Biologique de Paris (Paris, 1899) 17-39; Hugo de Vries, 'Othonna crassifolia', Botanisch Jaarboek 12: (1900) 20-40.
65. De Vries (n. 32) 'Zweigipflige Variationscurve'; Hugo de Vries, 'Sur les courbes Galtoniennes des monstruosités', Bulletin Scientifique de France et Belgique 27: (1896) 395-413; Hugo de Vries, 'Eenheid in veranderlijkheid', Album der natuur (1898) 65-80; De Vries (n. 31) 'Over het omkeeren'; De Vries (n. 32) 'Über Curvenselection'; Hugo de Vries, 'Alimentation et sélection', Volume Jubilaire de la Société Biologique de Paris (Paris, 1899) 17-39; Hugo de Vries, 'Othonna crassifolia', Botanisch Jaarboek 12: (1900) 20-40.
66. Ed. Verschaffelt, 'Über asymmetrische Variationscurven', Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 13: (1895) 349-351.
67. Francis Galton, Natural Inheritance (London, 1889) 63-65.
68. 'Botanische voordrachten van Prof. Hugo de Vries', Dagblad van Zuid-Holland en 's-Gravenhage, 19 and 20 March 1899. Also in: Veranderlijkheid bij uitzaaien', in: P.A. Haaxman (red.), Maatschappij Diligentia. Natuurkundige Voordrachten (The Hague, 1899) 85-89. The lecture plates of the billiard and the triangle are now in the collection of the University Museum De Agnietenkapel of the University of Amsterdam (cat. nrs. 076.249 and 076.196, respectively). The plate of the billiard was made by De Vries in 1899, the plate of the triangle bears no date.
69. 'Botanische voordrachten van Prof. Hugo de Vries', Dagblad van Zuid-Holland en 's-Gravenhage, 19 and 20 March 1899. Also in: Veranderlijkheid bij uitzaaien', in: P.A. Haaxman (red.), Maatschappij Diligentia. Natuurkundige Voordrachten (The Hague, 1899) 85-89. The lecture plates of the billiard and the triangle are now in the collection of the University Museum De Agnietenkapel of the University of Amsterdam (cat. nrs. 076.249 and 076.196, respectively). The plate of the billiard was made by De Vries in 1899, the plate of the triangle bears no date.
70. This note is present in Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 477.
71. De Vries (n. 19) Mutationstheorie II, 155.
72. The note is dated 10 June 1896 and is a consideration on a note from 4 June 1896. The second part of the note is dated 18 August 1896. Here, De Vries is referring to his Journaal of 1896. This page is not from a Journaal but from one of the other types of notes described in the introduction of this paper.
73. De Vries (n. 19) Mutationstheorie II, 111-117, esp. 117. 'Hereditary number' is also mentioned in De Vries (n. 31) 'Over het omkeeren', 37, where it is defined as 'het percentage-gehalte aan varianten' (the proportion in terms of percentage of variations) of a seed-plant.
74. De Vries (n. 19) Mutationstheorie II, 111-117, esp. 117. 'Hereditary number' is also mentioned in De Vries (n. 31) 'Over het omkeeren', 37, where it is defined as 'het percentage-gehalte aan varianten' (the proportion in terms of percentage of variations) of a seed-plant.
75. Veronica longifolia is presented several times by De Vries as an example of 'vegatative disjunction', i.e. a plant that shows its hybrid nature by producing both blue en white flowers during life time (Hugo de Vries, 'Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde', Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 18: (1900) 86; De Vries (n. 19) Mutationstheorie II 172; Hugo de Vries, Species and Varieties (Chicago, 1905) 284-285; Hugo de Vries, 'Bastaardering en bevruchting', De Gids 21: (1903) 408. A lecture plate of a specimen of Veronica longifolia with vegatative disjunction is in the collection of the University Museum De Agnietenkapel of the University of Amsterdam, cat. no. 076.134). The idea has crossed my mind that the data are in fact percentages of white flowers found on single plants. To assume this interpretation of the data makes the whole note inexplicable, however.
76. Veronica longifolia is presented several times by De Vries as an example
77. Veronica longifolia is presented several times by De Vries as an example of 'vegatative disjunction', i.e. a plant that shows its hybrid nature by producing both blue en white flowers during life time (Hugo de Vries, 'Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde', Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 18: (1900) 86; De Vries (n. 19) Mutationstheorie II 172; Hugo de Vries, Species and Varieties (Chicago, 1905) 284-285; Hugo de Vries, 'Bastaardering en bevruchting', De Gids 21: (1903) 408. A lecture plate of a specimen of Veronica longifolia with vegatative disjunction is in the collection of the University Museum De Agnietenkapel of the University of Amsterdam, cat. no. 076.134). The idea has crossed my mind that the data are in fact percentages of white flowers found on single plants. To assume this interpretation of the data makes the whole note inexplicable, however.
78. Veronica longifolia is presented several times by De Vries as an example of 'vegatative disjunction', i.e. a plant that shows its hybrid nature by producing both blue en white flowers during life time (Hugo de Vries, 'Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde', Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 18: (1900) 86; De Vries (n. 19) Mutationstheorie II 172; Hugo de Vries, Species and Varieties (Chicago, 1905) 284-285; Hugo de Vries, 'Bastaardering en bevruchting', De Gids 21: (1903) 408. A lecture plate of a specimen of Veronica longifolia with vegatative disjunction is in the collection of the University Museum De Agnietenkapel of the University of Amsterdam, cat. no. 076.134). The idea has crossed my mind that the data are in fact percentages of white flowers found on single plants. To assume this interpretation of the data makes the whole note inexplicable, however.
79. De Vries (n. 47) 'Bastaardering', 408. I wonder if there is any relation between this remark on the colour of the flowers and the stem with Veronica longifolia and the following passage: 'Een der allermoeilijkste vragen is die naar de eenheden der eigenschappen. . . . Vele roodbloemige soorten hebben een witte variëteit. En als de soort ook in Stengel en bladeren, of ook alleen in de kiemplant, een rooden tint bezit, ontbreekt deze dikwijls, doch niet altijd, in de witte variëteit. Is de roode kleur der geheel plant ééne eigenschap, of zijn de kleuren van blad en bloem en tak afzonderlijke eigenschappen?' (One of the most difficult questions is that to the character-units. . . . Many red-flowered species have a white variety. And if the species has a red shade also in stem and leaves, or only in the seedling, it is often lacking, but not always, in the white variety. Is the red colour of the whole plant one character, or are the colours of leaf and flower separate characters?) (Hugo de Vries, 'Proeftuinen voor selectieproeven', Album der Natuur (1896) 68). Despite this remark, I think there is no need or a possibility to assume that De Vries is referring to a dihybrid crossing in the Veronica-note. 49. According to the text of the second part of the note, the percentages 1 and 5 in the new range are corrections and the percentages 6 and 14 are additions. In reality, however, 1, 5 and 6 are added to the original range, 13 is changed into 14 and 17 is removed from the data.
80. Note that De Vries says 'between 0 and 25% white' in de text and 'with 1-25% white' in the scheme. I have no explanation for this change of 0 into 1.
81. With two types of parents that are mutually crossed it is actually not correct to speak of a F2-generation because this expression is reserved for the progeny coming from the self fertilization of individuals from a F1. I like to maintain this inappropriate use however, in order to make things not too complicated.
82. I am much indebted to my brother André M. Zevenhuizen who pointed this out to me when I asked him whether the ratios 1: 4: 6: 4: 1 and 1: 2: 1 did ring a bell to him, shortly after I had found the notes that were quite puzzling to me at that time.
83. Th.J. Stomps, Vijfentwintig Jaren Mutatieleer (The Hague, 1930) 32, actually discusses the possibility 'dat zes factoren van invloed zijn' (that six factors are exerting their influence). He does not specify their supposed nature.
84. De Vries' own copy of Anthropométrie is in the Central Library of the University of Amsterdam.
85. Corcos and Monaghan (n. 1) 'Role of De Vries II', 275-276.
86. For the discussion whether Mendel discovered the laws named after him, see: Robert Olby, 'Mendel no Mendelian?', Journal for the History of Science 17: (1979) 53-72; Olby (n. 1) Origins, 234-258; J. Sapp, 'The nine lives of Gregor Mendel', in: H.E. le Grand (ed.), Experimental Inquiries (Dordrecht, 1990) 137-166; Vitezslav Orel, Gregor Mendel (Oxford, etc., 1996) 172-180.
87. For the discussion whether Mendel discovered the laws named after him, see: Robert Olby, 'Mendel no Mendelian?', Journal for the History of Science 17: (1979) 53-72; Olby (n. 1) Origins, 234-258; J. Sapp, 'The nine lives of Gregor Mendel', in: H.E. le Grand (ed.), Experimental Inquiries (Dordrecht, 1990) 137-166; Vitezslav Orel, Gregor Mendel (Oxford, etc., 1996) 172-180.
88. For the discussion whether Mendel discovered the laws named after him, see: Robert Olby, 'Mendel no Mendelian?', Journal for the History of Science 17: (1979) 53-72; Olby (n. 1) Origins, 234-258; J. Sapp, 'The nine lives of Gregor Mendel', in: H.E. le Grand (ed.), Experimental Inquiries (Dordrecht, 1990) 137-166; Vitezslav Orel, Gregor Mendel (Oxford, etc., 1996) 172-180.
89. For the discussion whether Mendel discovered the laws named after him, see: Robert Olby, 'Mendel no Mendelian?', Journal for the History of Science 17: (1979) 53-72; Olby (n. 1) Origins, 234-258; J. Sapp, 'The nine lives of Gregor Mendel', in: H.E. le Grand (ed.), Experimental Inquiries (Dordrecht, 1990) 137-166; Vitezslav Orel, Gregor Mendel (Oxford, etc., 1996) 172-180.
90. Present in Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 220. The text reads: '. . . vorm is absoluut constant, geeft bij kruising . . . fen echter alleen normale exemplaren (evenzoo Oenothera, . . . mia, Lychnis, dV). Het zaad van deze bastaarden . . . (5/16? dV) weer pelorische Individuen' (. . . form is absolutely constant, gives at crossing . . . however, only normal individuals (just as Oenothera, . . . mia, Lychnis, dV). The seeds of these hybrids . . . (5/ 16? dV) again peloric individuals).
91. Theoretically, the percentage of white plants can be 50% when the hybrid is pollinated with only germ cells carrying the white character.
92. De Vries (n. 19) Mutationstheorie I, 186.
93. Theunissen (n. 1) 'Closing', 230-231.
94. De Vries (n. 19) Mutationstheorie II, 693.
95. De Vries (n. 47) 'Spaltungsgesetz', 86. This same sentence is in De Vries (n. 19) Mutationstheorie II, 173, followed by: 'Wir nehmen dabei nach Mendel's Vorgang einstweilen an, dass die Spaltung eine volständige sei, dass keine ungespaltenen Reste übrig bleiben und dass somit die eine Hälfte der Ei- bezw. Samenzellen dem einen Elter, die andere Hälfte aber dem anderen gleich wird.'
96. De Vries (n. 47) 'Spaltungsgesetz', 86. This same sentence is in De Vries (n. 19) Mutationstheorie II, 173, followed by: 'Wir nehmen dabei nach Mendel's Vorgang einstweilen an, dass die Spaltung eine volständige sei, dass keine ungespaltenen Reste übrig bleiben und dass somit die eine Hälfte der Ei- bezw. Samenzellen dem einen Elter, die andere Hälfte aber dem anderen gleich wird.'
97. De Vries (n. 19) Mutationstheorie II, 693-694.
98. De Vries (n. 19) Mutationstheorie II, 693.
99. Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 146 (page 1). The original text reads: 'Als elke eigenschap in de kern door meer dan één pangen vertegenwoordigd was, zou er geen reductiedeling noodig zijn. Bij de bevruchting zouden de mannelijke en vrouwelijke groepen van gelijknamige pangenen dubbel zoo groot worden (door de vereeniging), maar als overigens dit aantal van voeding en prikkels afhangt, zou dit er niet op aankomen. Ergo pleit 't bestaan der reductiedeeling ervoor, dat elke eigenschap slechts op 1 pangen berust' (When each character in the nucleus is represented by more than one pangene, meiosis would not be necessary. On fertilization the male and female groups of similar pangenes would double (through the union), but when this number is dependent of nourishment and stimuli, this would not matter. So the existence of meiosis speaks in favour of the fact that each character is determined by only one pangene).
100. Hugo de Vries, Van Amoebe tot Mensch (Utrecht, 1918) 6.
101. Stamhuis (n. 1) 'Trauma', argues that active and latent were in fact not synonyms for dominant and recessive. His habit to view them as such brought De Vries in serious trouble.
102. Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 527.
103. Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 146 A. One of the cobs is pictured in De Vries (n. 19) Die Mutationstheorie II, 150.
104. Another mentioning of the 1.2.1 law is in Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 243. The date can not be established.
105. Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 182. This experiment is discussed in De Vries (n. 19) Die Mutationstheorie II, 316-317.
106. Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 228. See also inv. no. 146, pages 99, 102 (both entries from December 1920) and 166.
107. This note is present in Archive Hugo de Vries, inv. no. 533.
108. De Vries (n. 19) Mutationstheorie II, 153-154.
109. 3) 155-156) and after this had happened Beijerinck sent it to him. When Ilse Jahn quoted this remark of Stomps (Jahn (n. 1) 'Focke', 17) Stomps made the following annotation on his offprint of her paper: 'Op blz. 17 bij het x Staat dus een slordigheid van mijzelf! Absoluut zeker is dat de uitlating van Prof. De Vries tegenover Bailey slechts een vriendelijkheid was. Mijn gesprek met Prof. De Vr. hierover Staat nog woordelijk in mijn geheugen!' (On page 17 at the x is then a slovenliness of myself! Absolutely sure is that the remark of Prof. De Vries to Bailey was merely a kindness. My talk with Prof. De Vries about this is still word for word in my memory!). From a letter of Ilse Jahn to Stomps, dated 20 Feb 1957, it appears that Stomps had searched in vain for the letter by Beijerinck and assumed that De Vries had thrown it away (Library of the Biological Centre, University of Amsterdam: Archive Theo J. Stomps, inv. no. 54). The letter of Beijerinck did not show up during the inventarization of the archive of De Vries.
110. 3) 155-156) and after this had happened Beijerinck sent it to him. When Ilse Jahn quoted this remark of Stomps (Jahn (n. 1) 'Focke', 17) Stomps made the following annotation on his offprint of her paper: 'Op blz. 17 bij het x Staat dus een slordigheid van mijzelf! Absoluut zeker is dat de uitlating van Prof. De Vries tegenover Bailey slechts een vriendelijkheid was. Mijn gesprek met Prof. De Vr. hierover Staat nog woordelijk in mijn geheugen!' (On page 17 at the x is then a slovenliness of myself! Absolutely sure is that the remark of Prof. De Vries to Bailey was merely a kindness. My talk with Prof. De Vries about this is still word for word in my memory!). From a letter of Ilse Jahn to Stomps, dated 20 Feb 1957, it appears that Stomps had searched in vain for the letter by Beijerinck and assumed that De Vries had thrown it away (Library of the Biological Centre, University of Amsterdam: Archive Theo J. Stomps, inv. no. 54). The letter of Beijerinck did not show up during the inventarization of the archive of De Vries.
111. 3) 155-156) and after this had happened Beijerinck sent it to him. When Ilse Jahn quoted this remark of Stomps (Jahn (n. 1) 'Focke', 17) Stomps made the following annotation on his offprint of her paper: 'Op blz. 17 bij het x Staat dus een slordigheid van mijzelf! Absoluut zeker is dat de uitlating van Prof. De Vries tegenover Bailey slechts een vriendelijkheid was. Mijn gesprek met Prof. De Vr. hierover Staat nog woordelijk in mijn geheugen!' (On page 17 at the x is then a slovenliness of myself! Absolutely sure is that the remark of Prof. De Vries to Bailey was merely a kindness. My talk with Prof. De Vries about this is still word for word in my memory!). From a letter of Ilse Jahn to Stomps, dated 20 Feb 1957, it appears that Stomps had searched in vain for the letter by Beijerinck and assumed that De Vries had thrown it away (Library of the Biological Centre, University of Amsterdam: Archive Theo J. Stomps, inv. no. 54). The letter of Beijerinck did not show up during the inventarization of the archive of De Vries.
112. So I do not agree with Darden when she says: 'He [De Vries] was examining the percentages of atavistic characters in progeny through several generations. Once he crossed differing varieties, allowed the hybrids to self-fertilize, and noted the patterns of characters in the second generation hybrids, he would have the statistical results on the basis of which the law could be inferred' (Darden (n. 1) 'Reasoning', 153). Neither do I agree with Campbell who, as a reaction on Darden, stated that De Vries' reasoning process had moved 'in the opposite direction': 'The law of segregation is not reasoned from the empirical results: it is invented to account for them' (Campbell (n. 1) 'Did De Vries', 652). I do however, agree with Corcos and Monaghan when they say that De Vries, contrary to Mendel, was tied to a theoretical structure he had made up earlier: 'De Vries' ideas are dominated by the influence of his theory of heredity' (Corcos and Monaghan (n. 1) 'Role of De Vries II', 276).
113. So I do not agree with Darden when she says: 'He [De Vries] was examining the percentages of atavistic characters in progeny through several generations. Once he crossed differing varieties, allowed the hybrids to self-fertilize, and noted the patterns of characters in the second generation hybrids, he would have the statistical results on the basis of which the law could be inferred' (Darden (n. 1) 'Reasoning', 153). Neither do I agree with Campbell who, as a reaction on Darden, stated that De Vries' reasoning process had moved 'in the opposite direction': 'The law of segregation is not reasoned from the empirical results: it is invented to account for them' (Campbell (n. 1) 'Did De Vries', 652). I do however, agree with Corcos and Monaghan when they say that De Vries, contrary to Mendel, was tied to a theoretical structure he had made up earlier: 'De Vries' ideas are dominated by the influence of his theory of heredity' (Corcos and Monaghan (n. 1) 'Role of De Vries II', 276).
114. So I do not agree with Darden when she says: 'He [De Vries] was examining the percentages of atavistic characters in progeny through several generations. Once he crossed differing varieties, allowed the hybrids to self-fertilize, and noted the patterns of characters in the second generation hybrids, he would have the statistical results on the basis of which the law could be inferred' (Darden (n. 1) 'Reasoning', 153). Neither do I agree with Campbell who, as a reaction on Darden, stated that De Vries' reasoning process had moved 'in the opposite direction': 'The law of segregation is not reasoned from the empirical results: it is invented to account for them' (Campbell (n. 1) 'Did De Vries', 652). I do however, agree with Corcos and Monaghan when they say that De Vries, contrary to Mendel, was tied to a theoretical structure he had made up earlier: 'De Vries' ideas are dominated by the influence of his theory of heredity' (Corcos and Monaghan (n. 1) 'Role of De Vries II', 276).
115. Hugo de Vries, De Ademhaling der Planten (Haarlem, 1878) 24.
116. De Vries (n. 66) Amoebe, 18.
117. See on this topic B. Theunissen, 'Knowledge is power: Hugo de Vries on science, heredity and social progress', British Journal for the History of Science 27: (1994) 291-311.