From Anomaly to Unification: Tracy Sonneborn and the Species Problem in Protozoa, 1954-1957

Journal of the History of Biology

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 93-132

  Schloegel, Judy Johns ^a  

^a NONE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Biological species concept; Evolution twentieth century; Evolutionary synthesis; Intimate knowledge; Model organisms; Protozoa; Species problem; Tracy Sonneborn

Indexed keywords

AURELIA; CILIOPHORA; PARAMECIUM; PARAMECIUM AURELIA; PROTOZOA;

EID: 0342594127     PISSN: 00225010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1004464509024     Document Type: Article

References (199)

1. On the role played by Mayr in organizing and unifying evolutionary biology, see Joseph Allen Cain, "Ernst Mayr as Community Architect: Launching the Society for the Study of Evolution and the Journal Evolution," Biology and Philosophy 9 (1994): 387-427 and Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, "Organizing Evolution: Founding the Society for the Study of Evolution (1939-1950)," Journal of the History of Biology 27 (1994): 241-309. See also Joseph Allen Cain, "Common Problems and Cooperative Solutions: Organizational Activity in Evolutionary Studies, 1936-1947," Isis 84 (1993): 1-25.
2. On the role played by Mayr in organizing and unifying evolutionary biology, see Joseph Allen Cain, "Ernst Mayr as Community Architect: Launching the Society for the Study of Evolution and the Journal Evolution," Biology and Philosophy 9 (1994): 387-427 and Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, "Organizing Evolution: Founding the Society for the Study of Evolution (1939-1950)," Journal of the History of Biology 27 (1994): 241-309. See also Joseph Allen Cain, "Common Problems and Cooperative Solutions: Organizational Activity in Evolutionary Studies, 1936-1947," Isis 84 (1993): 1-25.
3. On the role played by Mayr in organizing and unifying evolutionary biology, see Joseph Allen Cain, "Ernst Mayr as Community Architect: Launching the Society for the Study of Evolution and the Journal Evolution," Biology and Philosophy 9 (1994): 387-427 and Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, "Organizing Evolution: Founding the Society for the Study of Evolution (1939-1950)," Journal of the History of Biology 27 (1994): 241-309. See also Joseph Allen Cain, "Common Problems and Cooperative Solutions: Organizational Activity in Evolutionary Studies, 1936-1947," Isis 84 (1993): 1-25.
4. Ernst Mayr, ed., The Species Problem (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1957), pp. iii-iv, 1.
5. Theodosius Dobzhansky, "A Critique of the Species Concept in Biology," Philosophy of Science 2 (1935): 344-355, 344.
6. The relationship between a species concept and a species definition, according to Mayr in 1948, was that "a species definition is merely the verbalization of a species concept. Species concepts, in turn, are based on the study of species," which, he explained, "are aggregates of natural populations and can be fully understood only if at least some of them are studied as living populations." Ernst Mayr, "The Bearing of the New Systematics on Genetical Problems: The Nature of Species," Advances in Genetics 2 (1948): 205-237, 209.
7. One of the biological species definitions most frequently referred to by biologists, including Sonneborn, was Mayr's 1942 definition that "species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups." Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942), p. 120. Mayr formulated a species definition as early as 1940, but the influence of that definition was significantly reduced by his referring after 1942 only to his 1942 definition. Ernst Mayr, "Speciation Phenomena in Birds," American Naturalist 74 (1940): 249-278. See Peter Beurton, "Ernst Mayr through Time on the Biological Species Concept," Essays in the Honour of Ernst Mayr's 90th Birthday, Preprint #11, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (1994).
8. One of the biological species definitions most frequently referred to by biologists, including Sonneborn, was Mayr's 1942 definition that "species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups." Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942), p. 120. Mayr formulated a species definition as early as 1940, but the influence of that definition was significantly reduced by his referring after 1942 only to his 1942 definition. Ernst Mayr, "Speciation Phenomena in Birds," American Naturalist 74 (1940): 249-278. See Peter Beurton, "Ernst Mayr through Time on the Biological Species Concept," Essays in the Honour of Ernst Mayr's 90th Birthday, Preprint #11, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (1994).
9. One of the biological species definitions most frequently referred to by biologists, including Sonneborn, was Mayr's 1942 definition that "species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups." Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942), p. 120. Mayr formulated a species definition as early as 1940, but the influence of that definition was significantly reduced by his referring after 1942 only to his 1942 definition. Ernst Mayr, "Speciation Phenomena in Birds," American Naturalist 74 (1940): 249-278. See Peter Beurton, "Ernst Mayr through Time on the Biological Species Concept," Essays in the Honour of Ernst Mayr's 90th Birthday, Preprint #11, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (1994).
10. Mayr, ed., The Species Problem (above, n. 2), p. v.
11. T. M. Sonneborn diary, July 13, 1955; Tracy M. Sonneborn Manuscripts, Lilly Library, Indiana University (hereafter TMS-LL). 8. T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, February 15, 1956; TMS-LL.
12. Ernst Mayr, "Difficulties and Importance of the Biological Species," in Mayr, ed., The Species Problem, pp. 371-388, 371; Ernst Mayr, "Species Concepts and Definitions," in Mayr, ed., The Species Problem, pp. 1-22, 17, and Mayr, ed., The Species Problem (above, n. 2), p. iii.
13. Ernst Mayr, "Difficulties and Importance of the Biological Species," in Mayr, ed., The Species Problem, pp. 371-388, 371; Ernst Mayr, "Species Concepts and Definitions," in Mayr, ed., The Species Problem, pp. 1-22, 17, and Mayr, ed., The Species Problem (above, n. 2), p. iii.
14. Ernst Mayr, "Difficulties and Importance of the Biological Species," in Mayr, ed., The Species Problem, pp. 371-388, 371; Ernst Mayr, "Species Concepts and Definitions," in Mayr, ed., The Species Problem, pp. 1-22, 17, and Mayr, ed., The Species Problem (above, n. 2), p. iii.
15. Verne Grant, "The Plant Species in Theory and Practice," in Mayr, ed., The Species Problem (above, n. 2), pp. 39-80, 61.
16. Sonneborn to Mayr, February 15, 1956 (above, n. 8).
17. Sonneborn maintained throughout much of his career that his investigative approach was the pursuit of "intimate knowledge," gained through "intimate acquaintance" and "intimate familiarity" of P. aurelia. In using the term intimate knowledge, I aim to describe the products of a method of knowing practiced by some scientists (such as Sonneborn) who consider their personal commitment to particular components of their scientific enterprise (such as an organism in the case of Sonneborn, or a scientific instrument) to be an epistemically valuable means of obtaining scientific knowledge. Judy Johns Schloegel, "Intimate Biology: Herbert Spencer Jennings, Tracy Sonneborn and the Career of American Protozoan Genetics," Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, in preparation. See also Evelyn Fox Keller, A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1983), especially pp. 197-207.
18. Sonneborn maintained throughout much of his career that his investigative approach was the pursuit of "intimate knowledge," gained through "intimate acquaintance" and "intimate familiarity" of P. aurelia. In using the term intimate knowledge, I aim to describe the products of a method of knowing practiced by some scientists (such as Sonneborn) who consider their personal commitment to particular components of their scientific enterprise (such as an organism in the case of Sonneborn, or a scientific instrument) to be an epistemically valuable means of obtaining scientific knowledge. Judy Johns Schloegel, "Intimate Biology: Herbert Spencer Jennings, Tracy Sonneborn and the Career of American Protozoan Genetics," Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, in preparation. See also Evelyn Fox Keller, A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1983), especially pp. 197-207.
19. T. M. Sonneborn, "Breeding Systems, Reproductive Methods, and Species Problems in Protozoa," in Mayr, ed., The Species Problem (above, n. 2), pp. 155-324, 156.
20. Ibid., pp. 156-157.
21. See, for example, David L. Nanney, "Tracy M. Sonneborn (1905-1981)," Genetics 102 (1982): 1-7, and G. H. Beale, "Tracy Morton Sonneborn, 1905-1981," Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 28 (1982): 537-574.
22. See, for example, David L. Nanney, "Tracy M. Sonneborn (1905-1981)," Genetics 102 (1982): 1-7, and G. H. Beale, "Tracy Morton Sonneborn, 1905-1981," Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 28 (1982): 537-574.
23. T. M. Sonneborn, "Mating Types in Paramecium aurelia: Diverse Conditions for Mating in Different Stocks; Occurrence, Number, and Interrelations of the Types," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 79 (1938): 411-434, and T. M. Sonneborn, "Paramecium aurelia: Mating Types and Groups; Lethal Interactions; Determination and Inheritance," The American Naturalist 73 (1939): 390-413, 396. See also H. S. Jennings, "Paramecium bursaria: Mating Types and Groups, Mating Behavior, Self-Sterility; Their Development and Inheritance," The American Naturalist 73 (1939): 414-431.
24. T. M. Sonneborn, "Mating Types in Paramecium aurelia: Diverse Conditions for Mating in Different Stocks; Occurrence, Number, and Interrelations of the Types," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 79 (1938): 411-434, and T. M. Sonneborn, "Paramecium aurelia: Mating Types and Groups; Lethal Interactions; Determination and Inheritance," The American Naturalist 73 (1939): 390-413, 396. See also H. S. Jennings, "Paramecium bursaria: Mating Types and Groups, Mating Behavior, Self-Sterility; Their Development and Inheritance," The American Naturalist 73 (1939): 414-431.
25. T. M. Sonneborn, "Mating Types in Paramecium aurelia: Diverse Conditions for Mating in Different Stocks; Occurrence, Number, and Interrelations of the Types," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 79 (1938): 411-434, and T. M. Sonneborn, "Paramecium aurelia: Mating Types and Groups; Lethal Interactions; Determination and Inheritance," The American Naturalist 73 (1939): 390-413, 396. See also H. S. Jennings, "Paramecium bursaria: Mating Types and Groups, Mating Behavior, Self-Sterility; Their Development and Inheritance," The American Naturalist 73 (1939): 414-431.
26. T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, August 10, 1949; TMS-LL.
27. T. M. Sonneborn, "Paramecium in Modern Biology: Introduction. Some Problems in Heredity," manuscript for unpublished lecture, March 9, 1955, p. 3; TMS-LL, and T. M. Sonneborn, "Heredity, Development and Evolution in Paramecium," Nature 175 (June 25, 1955): 1100.
28. T. M. Sonneborn, "Paramecium in Modern Biology: Introduction. Some Problems in Heredity," manuscript for unpublished lecture, March 9, 1955, p. 3; TMS-LL, and T. M. Sonneborn, "Heredity, Development and Evolution in Paramecium," Nature 175 (June 25, 1955): 1100.
29. In 1938, Sonneborn knew of three groups of P. aurelia. By 1955, sixteen such "varieties" were known. T. M. Sonneborn, "Paramecium in Modern Biology: III. Problems of Evolution," unpublished lecture, March 11, 1955, pp. 3-7; TMS-LL (emphasis original).
30. Schloegel, "Intimate Biology" (above, n. 12).
31. H. S. Jennings, Daniel Raffel, Ruth Stocking Lynch, and T. M. Sonneborn, "The Diverse Biotypes Produced by Conjugation within a Clone of Paramecium aurelia," The Journal of Experimental Zoology 62 (1932): 363-408, 368. "Endomixis" was believed to entail the disintegration of the macronucleus (a nucleus possessing only somatic functions), followed by its replacement by a product of the micronucleus (a separate nucleus possessing only germinal functions) and to involve neither meiosis nor self-fertilization. In 1939, Sonneborn demonstrated genetically that in P. aurelia these events did include both meiosis and self-fertilization, and therefore the process was actually "autogamy." See Sonneborn, "Paramecium Aurelia" (above, n. 16), and T. M. Sonneborn, "The Relation of Autogamy to Senescence and Rejuvenescence in Paramecium aurelia," The Journal of Protozoology 1 (1954): 38-53.
32. H. S. Jennings, Daniel Raffel, Ruth Stocking Lynch, and T. M. Sonneborn, "The Diverse Biotypes Produced by Conjugation within a Clone of Paramecium aurelia," The Journal of Experimental Zoology 62 (1932): 363-408, 368. "Endomixis" was believed to entail the disintegration of the macronucleus (a nucleus possessing only somatic functions), followed by its replacement by a product of the micronucleus (a separate nucleus possessing only germinal functions) and to involve neither meiosis nor self-fertilization. In 1939, Sonneborn demonstrated genetically that in P. aurelia these events did include both meiosis and self-fertilization, and therefore the process was actually "autogamy." See Sonneborn, "Paramecium Aurelia" (above, n. 16), and T. M. Sonneborn, "The Relation of Autogamy to Senescence and Rejuvenescence in Paramecium aurelia," The Journal of Protozoology 1 (1954): 38-53.
33. H. S. Jennings, Daniel Raffel, Ruth Stocking Lynch, and T. M. Sonneborn, "The Diverse Biotypes Produced by Conjugation within a Clone of Paramecium aurelia," The Journal of Experimental Zoology 62 (1932): 363-408, 368. "Endomixis" was believed to entail the disintegration of the macronucleus (a nucleus possessing only somatic functions), followed by its replacement by a product of the micronucleus (a separate nucleus possessing only germinal functions) and to involve neither meiosis nor self-fertilization. In 1939, Sonneborn demonstrated genetically that in P. aurelia these events did include both meiosis and self-fertilization, and therefore the process was actually "autogamy." See Sonneborn, "Paramecium Aurelia" (above, n. 16), and T. M. Sonneborn, "The Relation of Autogamy to Senescence and Rejuvenescence in Paramecium aurelia," The Journal of Protozoology 1 (1954): 38-53.
34. T. M. Sonneborn and Ruth Stocking Lynch, "Hybridization and Segregation in Paramecium aurelia" The Journal of Experimental Zoology 67 (1934): 1-72; T. M. Sonneborn, "Mendelian Methods Applied to the Ciliate Protozoan, Paramecium aurelia," The American Naturalist 67 (1933): 72; and T. M. Sonneborn, "My Intellectual History in Relation to My Contributions to Science," unpublished manuscript, July 29, 1978; TMS-LL.
35. T. M. Sonneborn and Ruth Stocking Lynch, "Hybridization and Segregation in Paramecium aurelia" The Journal of Experimental Zoology 67 (1934): 1-72; T. M. Sonneborn, "Mendelian Methods Applied to the Ciliate Protozoan, Paramecium aurelia," The American Naturalist 67 (1933): 72; and T. M. Sonneborn, "My Intellectual History in Relation to My Contributions to Science," unpublished manuscript, July 29, 1978; TMS-LL.
36. T. M. Sonneborn and Ruth Stocking Lynch, "Hybridization and Segregation in Paramecium aurelia" The Journal of Experimental Zoology 67 (1934): 1-72; T. M. Sonneborn, "Mendelian Methods Applied to the Ciliate Protozoan, Paramecium aurelia," The American Naturalist 67 (1933): 72; and T. M. Sonneborn, "My Intellectual History in Relation to My Contributions to Science," unpublished manuscript, July 29, 1978; TMS-LL.
37. T. M. Sonneborn, "Factors Determining Conjugation in Paramecium aurelia. I. The Cyclical Factor: The Recency of Nuclear Reorganization," Genetics 21 (1936): 503-514; T. M. Sonneborn, "Induction of Endomixis in Paramecium aurelia," Biological Bulletin 72 (1937): 196-202; T. M. Sonneborn, "Sex, Sex Inheritance and Sex Determination in Paramecium aurelia," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 23 (1937): 378-385, 385; and T. M. Sonneborn, Research Notebook, June 16, 1935; TMS-LL.
38. T. M. Sonneborn, "Factors Determining Conjugation in Paramecium aurelia. I. The Cyclical Factor: The Recency of Nuclear Reorganization," Genetics 21 (1936): 503-514; T. M. Sonneborn, "Induction of Endomixis in Paramecium aurelia," Biological Bulletin 72 (1937): 196-202; T. M. Sonneborn, "Sex, Sex Inheritance and Sex Determination in Paramecium aurelia," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 23 (1937): 378-385, 385; and T. M. Sonneborn, Research Notebook, June 16, 1935; TMS-LL.
39. T. M. Sonneborn, "Factors Determining Conjugation in Paramecium aurelia. I. The Cyclical Factor: The Recency of Nuclear Reorganization," Genetics 21 (1936): 503-514; T. M. Sonneborn, "Induction of Endomixis in Paramecium aurelia," Biological Bulletin 72 (1937): 196-202; T. M. Sonneborn, "Sex, Sex Inheritance and Sex Determination in Paramecium aurelia," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 23 (1937): 378-385, 385; and T. M. Sonneborn, Research Notebook, June 16, 1935; TMS-LL.
40. T. M. Sonneborn, "Factors Determining Conjugation in Paramecium aurelia. I. The Cyclical Factor: The Recency of Nuclear Reorganization," Genetics 21 (1936): 503-514; T. M. Sonneborn, "Induction of Endomixis in Paramecium aurelia," Biological Bulletin 72 (1937): 196-202; T. M. Sonneborn, "Sex, Sex Inheritance and Sex Determination in Paramecium aurelia," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 23 (1937): 378-385, 385; and T. M. Sonneborn, Research Notebook, June 16, 1935; TMS-LL.
41. Schloegel, "Intimate Biology" (above, n. 12), and Sonneborn, "My Intellectual History" (above, n. 22).
42. Schloegel, "Intimate Biology" (above, n. 12), and Sonneborn, "My Intellectual History" (above, n. 22).
43. Sonneborn, "Paramecium in Modern Biology: Introduction" (above, n. 18), p. 3.
44. Jan Sapp, Beyond the Gene: Cytoplasmic Inheritance and the Struggle for Authority in Genetics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), especially pp. 87-122.
45. Robert Olby, The Path to the Double Helix: The Discovery of DNA, 2nd Edition (New York: Dover Publications, 1994), pp. 123-152; Lily E. Kay, The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 121-142, and 194-199; and Evelyn Fox Keller, "Language and Science: Genetics, Embryology, and the Discourse of Gene Action," in Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth-Century Biology (New York: The Columbia University Press, 1995), pp. 1-42.
46. Robert Olby, The Path to the Double Helix: The Discovery of DNA, 2nd Edition (New York: Dover Publications, 1994), pp. 123-152; Lily E. Kay, The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 121-142, and 194-199; and Evelyn Fox Keller, "Language and Science: Genetics, Embryology, and the Discourse of Gene Action," in Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth-Century Biology (New York: The Columbia University Press, 1995), pp. 1-42.
47. Robert Olby, The Path to the Double Helix: The Discovery of DNA, 2nd Edition (New York: Dover Publications, 1994), pp. 123-152; Lily E. Kay, The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 121-142, and 194-199; and Evelyn Fox Keller, "Language and Science: Genetics, Embryology, and the Discourse of Gene Action," in Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth-Century Biology (New York: The Columbia University Press, 1995), pp. 1-42.
48. Sonneborn was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1946, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1949, and the American Philosophical Society in 1952. He served as president of both the American Society of Naturalists and the Genetics Society of America in 1949, and the American Society of Zoologists in 1956.
49. See, for example, T. M. Sonneborn, "Gene and Cytoplasm. I. The Determination and Inheritance of the Killer Character in Variety 4 of P. aurelia, and II. The Bearing of the Determination and Inheritance of Characters in P. aurelia on the Problems of Cytoplasmic Inheritance, Pneumococcus Transformations, Mutations and Development," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 29 (1943): 329-343; T. M. Sonneborn and G. H. Beale, "Genes, Plasmagenes and Environment in the Control of Antigenic Traits in Paramecium aurelia (Variety 4)," Hereditas (Supplement, 1948): 451-460; and T. M. Sonneborn, "Beyond the Gene," American Scientist 37 (January 1949): 33-59.
50. See, for example, T. M. Sonneborn, "Gene and Cytoplasm. I. The Determination and Inheritance of the Killer Character in Variety 4 of P. aurelia, and II. The Bearing of the Determination and Inheritance of Characters in P. aurelia on the Problems of Cytoplasmic Inheritance, Pneumococcus Transformations, Mutations and Development," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 29 (1943): 329-343; T. M. Sonneborn and G. H. Beale, "Genes, Plasmagenes and Environment in the Control of Antigenic Traits in Paramecium aurelia (Variety 4)," Hereditas (Supplement, 1948): 451-460; and T. M. Sonneborn, "Beyond the Gene," American Scientist 37 (January 1949): 33-59.
51. See, for example, T. M. Sonneborn, "Gene and Cytoplasm. I. The Determination and Inheritance of the Killer Character in Variety 4 of P. aurelia, and II. The Bearing of the Determination and Inheritance of Characters in P. aurelia on the Problems of Cytoplasmic Inheritance, Pneumococcus Transformations, Mutations and Development," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 29 (1943): 329-343; T. M. Sonneborn and G. H. Beale, "Genes, Plasmagenes and Environment in the Control of Antigenic Traits in Paramecium aurelia (Variety 4)," Hereditas (Supplement, 1948): 451-460; and T. M. Sonneborn, "Beyond the Gene," American Scientist 37 (January 1949): 33-59.
52. See, for example, Edgar Altenburg, "The 'Viroid' Theory in Relation to Plasmagenes, Viruses, Cancer and Plastids," The American Naturalist 80 (1946): 559-567; Edgar Altenburg, "The Symbiont Theory in Explanation of the Apparent Cytoplasmic Inheritance in Paramecium," The American Naturalist 80 (1946): 661-662; and Max Delbrück, "Discussion," in Unités biologiques douées de continuité génétique (Paris: Publications du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1949), pp. 33-34. This turn of events was facilitated by geneticists' reaction to the 1948 Session of the Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences in which Lysenkoism emerged victorious. See Sapp, Beyond the Gene (above, n. 26), pp. 105-122, and 163-191.
53. See, for example, Edgar Altenburg, "The 'Viroid' Theory in Relation to Plasmagenes, Viruses, Cancer and Plastids," The American Naturalist 80 (1946): 559-567; Edgar Altenburg, "The Symbiont Theory in Explanation of the Apparent Cytoplasmic Inheritance in Paramecium," The American Naturalist 80 (1946): 661-662; and Max Delbrück, "Discussion," in Unités biologiques douées de continuité génétique (Paris: Publications du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1949), pp. 33-34. This turn of events was facilitated by geneticists' reaction to the 1948 Session of the Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences in which Lysenkoism emerged victorious. See Sapp, Beyond the Gene (above, n. 26), pp. 105-122, and 163-191.
54. See, for example, Edgar Altenburg, "The 'Viroid' Theory in Relation to Plasmagenes, Viruses, Cancer and Plastids," The American Naturalist 80 (1946): 559-567; Edgar Altenburg, "The Symbiont Theory in Explanation of the Apparent Cytoplasmic Inheritance in Paramecium," The American Naturalist 80 (1946): 661-662; and Max Delbrück, "Discussion," in Unités biologiques douées de continuité génétique (Paris: Publications du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1949), pp. 33-34. This turn of events was facilitated by geneticists' reaction to the 1948 Session of the Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences in which Lysenkoism emerged victorious. See Sapp, Beyond the Gene (above, n. 26), pp. 105-122, and 163-191.
55. See, for example, Edgar Altenburg, "The 'Viroid' Theory in Relation to Plasmagenes, Viruses, Cancer and Plastids," The American Naturalist 80 (1946): 559-567; Edgar Altenburg, "The Symbiont Theory in Explanation of the Apparent Cytoplasmic Inheritance in Paramecium," The American Naturalist 80 (1946): 661-662; and Max Delbrück, "Discussion," in Unités biologiques douées de continuité génétique (Paris: Publications du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1949), pp. 33-34. This turn of events was facilitated by geneticists' reaction to the 1948 Session of the Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences in which Lysenkoism emerged victorious. See Sapp, Beyond the Gene (above, n. 26), pp. 105-122, and 163-191.
56. T. M. Sonneborn, "Cellular Transformations," The Harvey Lecture Series 44 (1950): 145-164, 145. Sonneborn presented the Harvey Lecture on February 17, 1949.
57. T. M. Sonneborn, "Beyond the Gene - Two Years Later," in George A. Baitsell, ed., Science in Progress 7th Series (1950): 167-203; T. M. Sonneborn, "Partner of the Genes," Scientific American (November 1950): 30-39; T. M. Sonneborn, "Patterns of Nucleocytoplasmic Integration in Paramecium," Caryologia Vol. suppl. (1954): 307-325; and T. M. Sonneborn, "The Role of the Genes in Cytoplasmic Inheritance," in L. C. Dunn, ed., Genetics in the 20th Century: Essays on the Progress of Genetics During Its First 50 Years (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), pp. 291-314.
58. T. M. Sonneborn, "Beyond the Gene - Two Years Later," in George A. Baitsell, ed., Science in Progress 7th Series (1950): 167-203; T. M. Sonneborn, "Partner of the Genes," Scientific American (November 1950): 30-39; T. M. Sonneborn, "Patterns of Nucleocytoplasmic Integration in Paramecium," Caryologia Vol. suppl. (1954): 307-325; and T. M. Sonneborn, "The Role of the Genes in Cytoplasmic Inheritance," in L. C. Dunn, ed., Genetics in the 20th Century: Essays on the Progress of Genetics During Its First 50 Years (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), pp. 291-314.
59. T. M. Sonneborn, "Beyond the Gene - Two Years Later," in George A. Baitsell, ed., Science in Progress 7th Series (1950): 167-203; T. M. Sonneborn, "Partner of the Genes," Scientific American (November 1950): 30-39; T. M. Sonneborn, "Patterns of Nucleocytoplasmic Integration in Paramecium," Caryologia Vol. suppl. (1954): 307-325; and T. M. Sonneborn, "The Role of the Genes in Cytoplasmic Inheritance," in L. C. Dunn, ed., Genetics in the 20th Century: Essays on the Progress of Genetics During Its First 50 Years (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), pp. 291-314.
60. T. M. Sonneborn, "Beyond the Gene - Two Years Later," in George A. Baitsell, ed., Science in Progress 7th Series (1950): 167-203; T. M. Sonneborn, "Partner of the Genes," Scientific American (November 1950): 30-39; T. M. Sonneborn, "Patterns of Nucleocytoplasmic Integration in Paramecium," Caryologia Vol. suppl. (1954): 307-325; and T. M. Sonneborn, "The Role of the Genes in Cytoplasmic Inheritance," in L. C. Dunn, ed., Genetics in the 20th Century: Essays on the Progress of Genetics During Its First 50 Years (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), pp. 291-314.
61. G. H. Beale, The Genetics of Paramecium aurelia (London: Cambridge University Press, 1954), p. ix.
62. Ibid., pp. 147-148, 161, 163.
63. T. M. Sonneborn to G. H. Beale, November 24, 1954; TMS-LL.
64. P. B. Medawar to T. M. Sonneborn, April 28, 1954, and J. B. S. Haldane to T. M. Sonneborn, July 2, 1954; TMS-LL.
65. On unification in the biological sciences, see Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).
66. Sonneborn, "Paramecium in Modern Biology: Introduction" (above, n. 18), p. 8.
67. Ibid., pp. 5, 8 (emphasis in original).
68. Ibid., p. 9. Gametic nuclei are formed from one of the haploid products of meiosis via a subsequent stage of mitosis. Thus, in both conjugation and autogamy, the gametic nuclei are genetically identical. On organisms as investigative tools in the biological sciences, see Adele E. Clarke and Joan H. Fujimura, eds., The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992); special issue on "The Right Organism for the Job," Journal of the History of Biology 26 (1993); Robert Kohler, Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); and Karen A. Rader, "Making Mice: C. C. Little, the Jackson Laboratory and the Standardization of Mus Musculus for Research," Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, 1995. For discussion of the role played by research organisms' "intrinsic characteristics" and their contextualization in relation to institutional, disciplinary, conceptual, and other historical factors, see Rachel Allyson Ankeny, "The Conquerer Worm: An Historical and Philosophical Examination of the Use of the Nematode C. Elegans as a Model Organism," Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1997.
69. Ibid., p. 9. Gametic nuclei are formed from one of the haploid products of meiosis via a subsequent stage of mitosis. Thus, in both conjugation and autogamy, the gametic nuclei are genetically identical. On organisms as investigative tools in the biological sciences, see Adele E. Clarke and Joan H. Fujimura, eds., The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992); special issue on "The Right Organism for the Job," Journal of the History of Biology 26 (1993); Robert Kohler, Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); and Karen A. Rader, "Making Mice: C. C. Little, the Jackson Laboratory and the Standardization of Mus Musculus for Research," Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, 1995. For discussion of the role played by research organisms' "intrinsic characteristics" and their contextualization in relation to institutional, disciplinary, conceptual, and other historical factors, see Rachel Allyson Ankeny, "The Conquerer Worm: An Historical and Philosophical Examination of the Use of the Nematode C. Elegans as a Model Organism," Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1997.
70. Ibid., p. 9. Gametic nuclei are formed from one of the haploid products of meiosis via a subsequent stage of mitosis. Thus, in both conjugation and autogamy, the gametic nuclei are genetically identical. On organisms as investigative tools in the biological sciences, see Adele E. Clarke and Joan H. Fujimura, eds., The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992); special issue on "The Right Organism for the Job," Journal of the History of Biology 26 (1993); Robert Kohler, Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); and Karen A. Rader, "Making Mice: C. C. Little, the Jackson Laboratory and the Standardization of Mus Musculus for Research," Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, 1995. For discussion of the role played by research organisms' "intrinsic characteristics" and their contextualization in relation to institutional, disciplinary, conceptual, and other historical factors, see Rachel Allyson Ankeny, "The Conquerer Worm: An Historical and Philosophical Examination of the Use of the Nematode C. Elegans as a Model Organism," Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1997.
71. Ibid., p. 9. Gametic nuclei are formed from one of the haploid products of meiosis via a subsequent stage of mitosis. Thus, in both conjugation and autogamy, the gametic nuclei are genetically identical. On organisms as investigative tools in the biological sciences, see Adele E. Clarke and Joan H. Fujimura, eds., The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992); special issue on "The Right Organism for the Job," Journal of the History of Biology 26 (1993); Robert Kohler, Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); and Karen A. Rader, "Making Mice: C. C. Little, the Jackson Laboratory and the Standardization of Mus Musculus for Research," Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, 1995. For discussion of the role played by research organisms' "intrinsic characteristics" and their contextualization in relation to institutional, disciplinary, conceptual, and other historical factors, see Rachel Allyson Ankeny, "The Conquerer Worm: An Historical and Philosophical Examination of the Use of the Nematode C. Elegans as a Model Organism," Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1997.
72. Ibid., p. 9. Gametic nuclei are formed from one of the haploid products of meiosis via a subsequent stage of mitosis. Thus, in both conjugation and autogamy, the gametic nuclei are genetically identical. On organisms as investigative tools in the biological sciences, see Adele E. Clarke and Joan H. Fujimura, eds., The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992); special issue on "The Right Organism for the Job," Journal of the History of Biology 26 (1993); Robert Kohler, Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); and Karen A. Rader, "Making Mice: C. C. Little, the Jackson Laboratory and the Standardization of Mus Musculus for Research," Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, 1995. For discussion of the role played by research organisms' "intrinsic characteristics" and their contextualization in relation to institutional, disciplinary, conceptual, and other historical factors, see Rachel Allyson Ankeny, "The Conquerer Worm: An Historical and Philosophical Examination of the Use of the Nematode C. Elegans as a Model Organism," Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1997.
73. Ibid., p. 9. Gametic nuclei are formed from one of the haploid products of meiosis via a subsequent stage of mitosis. Thus, in both conjugation and autogamy, the gametic nuclei are genetically identical. On organisms as investigative tools in the biological sciences, see Adele E. Clarke and Joan H. Fujimura, eds., The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992); special issue on "The Right Organism for the Job," Journal of the History of Biology 26 (1993); Robert Kohler, Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); and Karen A. Rader, "Making Mice: C. C. Little, the Jackson Laboratory and the Standardization of Mus Musculus for Research," Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, 1995. For discussion of the role played by research organisms' "intrinsic characteristics" and their contextualization in relation to institutional, disciplinary, conceptual, and other historical factors, see Rachel Allyson Ankeny, "The Conquerer Worm: An Historical and Philosophical Examination of the Use of the Nematode C. Elegans as a Model Organism," Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1997.
74. T. M. Sonneborn to C. A. Hoare, August 8, 1956; TMS. The "geneticists" that Sonneborn referred to were probably Hampton Carson and Verne Grant. Prior to advancing his critique, Sonneborn considered a 1952 paper by Hoare to be exemplary of what he perceived to be an outdated, morphological interpretation of species in protozoa. C. A. Hoare, "The Taxonomic Status of Biological Races in Parasitic Protozoa," Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1952): 44-47, and T. M. Sonneborn, "Protozoan Species," undated manuscript notes; TMS-LL. Contrary to his statement to Hoare, however, Sonneborn's transformation did not bring his views into closer agreement with Hoare's. See Sonneborn, "Breeding Systems," pp. 283-284.
75. T. M. Sonneborn to C. A. Hoare, August 8, 1956; TMS. The "geneticists" that Sonneborn referred to were probably Hampton Carson and Verne Grant. Prior to advancing his critique, Sonneborn considered a 1952 paper by Hoare to be exemplary of what he perceived to be an outdated, morphological interpretation of species in protozoa. C. A. Hoare, "The Taxonomic Status of Biological Races in Parasitic Protozoa," Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1952): 44-47, and T. M. Sonneborn, "Protozoan Species," undated manuscript notes; TMS-LL. Contrary to his statement to Hoare, however, Sonneborn's transformation did not bring his views into closer agreement with Hoare's. See Sonneborn, "Breeding Systems," pp. 283-284.
76. T. M. Sonneborn to C. A. Hoare, August 8, 1956; TMS. The "geneticists" that Sonneborn referred to were probably Hampton Carson and Verne Grant. Prior to advancing his critique, Sonneborn considered a 1952 paper by Hoare to be exemplary of what he perceived to be an outdated, morphological interpretation of species in protozoa. C. A. Hoare, "The Taxonomic Status of Biological Races in Parasitic Protozoa," Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (1952): 44-47, and T. M. Sonneborn, "Protozoan Species," undated manuscript notes; TMS-LL. Contrary to his statement to Hoare, however, Sonneborn's transformation did not bring his views into closer agreement with Hoare's. See Sonneborn, "Breeding Systems," pp. 283-284.
77. T. M. Sonneborn, "The Structure of the Gene and the Nature of Gene Action in the Light of Work on Paramecium," p. 1, unpublished lecture, Vanderbilt University, 1944; TMS-LL. See also, T. M. Sonneborn, "Gene Action in Paramecium," Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens 32 (1945): 213-221.
78. T. M. Sonneborn, "The Structure of the Gene and the Nature of Gene Action in the Light of Work on Paramecium," p. 1, unpublished lecture, Vanderbilt University, 1944; TMS-LL. See also, T. M. Sonneborn, "Gene Action in Paramecium," Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens 32 (1945): 213-221.
79. T. M. Sonneborn to R. P. Hall, October 20, 1950; TMS-LL. See also David L. Nanney, "T. M. Sonneborn: Reluctant Protozoologist," Progress in Protozoology, Proceedings of VI International Congress of Protozoology, Special Congress Volume of Acta Protozoologica Part I (1982): 165-175.
80. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species (New York: Columbia University Press, 1937), and Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, 2nd Edition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1941).
81. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species (New York: Columbia University Press, 1937), and Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, 2nd Edition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1941).
82. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, 2nd Edition (above, n. 44), p. 367.
83. Ibid., pp. 378-379.
84. Ibid., pp. 371-378.
85. T. M. Sonneborn, "On Dobzhansky's Views," and T. M. Sonneborn, "Notes on Last Chapter of Dobzhansky's 1941 Book," unpublished research notes, undated; TMS-LL.
86. T. M. Sonneborn, "On Dobzhansky's Views," and T. M. Sonneborn, "Notes on Last Chapter of Dobzhansky's 1941 Book," unpublished research notes, undated; TMS-LL.
87. Dobzhansky, "A Critique of the Species Concept in Biology" (above, n. 3), p. 355.
88. Theodosius Dobzhansky, "What is a Species?" Scientia 61 (1937): 280-286, 285.
89. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, 2nd Edition (above, n. 44), p. 380. Stebbins reasserted this point in 1950 when he argued that "in attempting to set up species [in asexual organisms] like those found in sexual groups, [systematists] are looking for entities which in the biological sense are not there." G. Ledyard Stebbins, Variation and Evolution in Plants (New York: Columbia University Press, 1950), p. 409.
90. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, 2nd Edition (above, n. 44), p. 380. Stebbins reasserted this point in 1950 when he argued that "in attempting to set up species [in asexual organisms] like those found in sexual groups, [systematists] are looking for entities which in the biological sense are not there." G. Ledyard Stebbins, Variation and Evolution in Plants (New York: Columbia University Press, 1950), p. 409.
91. See, for example, Mayr, "Speciation Phenomena in Birds" (above, n. 5); Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (above, n. 5); and Mayr, ed., The Species Problem (above, n. 2).
92. See, for example, Mayr, "Speciation Phenomena in Birds" (above, n. 5); Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (above, n. 5); and Mayr, ed., The Species Problem (above, n. 2).
93. See, for example, Mayr, "Speciation Phenomena in Birds" (above, n. 5); Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (above, n. 5); and Mayr, ed., The Species Problem (above, n. 2).
94. Sonneborn, "Breeding Systems" (above, n. 13), p. 156.
95. Ibid., p. 200.
96. Ibid., p. 155-156.
97. Ibid., p. 156.
98. T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, June 21, 1956; A. C. Giese to T. M. Sonneborn, July 5, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 10, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Willis Johnson, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to C. A. Hoare, August 8, 1956; George Holz to T. M. Sonneborn, April 3, 1957; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, March 4, 1957; and T. M. Sonneborn to George Holz, April 8, 1957; TMS-LL.
99. T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, June 21, 1956; A. C. Giese to T. M. Sonneborn, July 5, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 10, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Willis Johnson, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to C. A. Hoare, August 8, 1956; George Holz to T. M. Sonneborn, April 3, 1957; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, March 4, 1957; and T. M. Sonneborn to George Holz, April 8, 1957; TMS-LL.
100. T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, June 21, 1956; A. C. Giese to T. M. Sonneborn, July 5, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 10, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Willis Johnson, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to C. A. Hoare, August 8, 1956; George Holz to T. M. Sonneborn, April 3, 1957; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, March 4, 1957; and T. M. Sonneborn to George Holz, April 8, 1957; TMS-LL.
101. T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, June 21, 1956; A. C. Giese to T. M. Sonneborn, July 5, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 10, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Willis Johnson, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to C. A. Hoare, August 8, 1956; George Holz to T. M. Sonneborn, April 3, 1957; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, March 4, 1957; and T. M. Sonneborn to George Holz, April 8, 1957; TMS-LL.
102. T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, June 21, 1956; A. C. Giese to T. M. Sonneborn, July 5, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 10, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Willis Johnson, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to C. A. Hoare, August 8, 1956; George Holz to T. M. Sonneborn, April 3, 1957; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, March 4, 1957; and T. M. Sonneborn to George Holz, April 8, 1957; TMS-LL.
103. T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, June 21, 1956; A. C. Giese to T. M. Sonneborn, July 5, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 10, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Willis Johnson, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to C. A. Hoare, August 8, 1956; George Holz to T. M. Sonneborn, April 3, 1957; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, March 4, 1957; and T. M. Sonneborn to George Holz, April 8, 1957; TMS-LL.
104. T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, June 21, 1956; A. C. Giese to T. M. Sonneborn, July 5, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 10, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Willis Johnson, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to C. A. Hoare, August 8, 1956; George Holz to T. M. Sonneborn, April 3, 1957; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, March 4, 1957; and T. M. Sonneborn to George Holz, April 8, 1957; TMS-LL.
105. T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, June 21, 1956; A. C. Giese to T. M. Sonneborn, July 5, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 10, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Willis Johnson, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to C. A. Hoare, August 8, 1956; George Holz to T. M. Sonneborn, April 3, 1957; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, March 4, 1957; and T. M. Sonneborn to George Holz, April 8, 1957; TMS-LL.
106. T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, June 21, 1956; A. C. Giese to T. M. Sonneborn, July 5, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 10, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Willis Johnson, July 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to C. A. Hoare, August 8, 1956; George Holz to T. M. Sonneborn, April 3, 1957; T. M. Sonneborn to A. C. Giese, March 4, 1957; and T. M. Sonneborn to George Holz, April 8, 1957; TMS-LL.
107. T. M. Sonneborn, "On Inbreeding in Nature; and Immaturity," May 11, 1955; T. M. Sonneborn, "Is P. aurelia Doomed to Extinction?" May 13, 1955; T. M. Sonneborn, "P. bursaria and P. aurelia: Basis of the Differences in their Biology and Genetic Systems," May 25, 1955; and T. M. Sonneborn, "Evolution in Paramecium and Other Ciliates," June 4, 1955; unpublished research notes, TMS-LL. Sonneborn's discussions of genetic systems and breeding systems were informed by C. D. Darlington's treatments of the same. His explanatory interests differed significantly from Darlington's, however, in that the former, typical of a "systematist-naturalist," constructed an evolutionary account at an organismic level by relating the diverse biological properties of different protozoa to their breeding systems. The latter, however, more characteristic of a "geneticist," was interested in the evolution of the genetic, or breeding systems, themselves. C. D. Darlington, "The Evolution of Genetic Systems," in Recent Advances in Cytology (London: Churchill, 1932), pp. 448-485, and C. D. Darlington, The Evolution of Genetic Systems (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1939).
108. T. M. Sonneborn, "On Inbreeding in Nature; and Immaturity," May 11, 1955; T. M. Sonneborn, "Is P. aurelia Doomed to Extinction?" May 13, 1955; T. M. Sonneborn, "P. bursaria and P. aurelia: Basis of the Differences in their Biology and Genetic Systems," May 25, 1955; and T. M. Sonneborn, "Evolution in Paramecium and Other Ciliates," June 4, 1955; unpublished research notes, TMS-LL. Sonneborn's discussions of genetic systems and breeding systems were informed by C. D. Darlington's treatments of the same. His explanatory interests differed significantly from Darlington's, however, in that the former, typical of a "systematist-naturalist," constructed an evolutionary account at an organismic level by relating the diverse biological properties of different protozoa to their breeding systems. The latter, however, more characteristic of a "geneticist," was interested in the evolution of the genetic, or breeding systems, themselves. C. D. Darlington, "The Evolution of Genetic Systems," in Recent Advances in Cytology (London: Churchill, 1932), pp. 448-485, and C. D. Darlington, The Evolution of Genetic Systems (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1939).
109. T. M. Sonneborn, "On Inbreeding in Nature; and Immaturity," May 11, 1955; T. M. Sonneborn, "Is P. aurelia Doomed to Extinction?" May 13, 1955; T. M. Sonneborn, "P. bursaria and P. aurelia: Basis of the Differences in their Biology and Genetic Systems," May 25, 1955; and T. M. Sonneborn, "Evolution in Paramecium and Other Ciliates," June 4, 1955; unpublished research notes, TMS-LL. Sonneborn's discussions of genetic systems and breeding systems were informed by C. D. Darlington's treatments of the same. His explanatory interests differed significantly from Darlington's, however, in that the former, typical of a "systematist-naturalist," constructed an evolutionary account at an organismic level by relating the diverse biological properties of different protozoa to their breeding systems. The latter, however, more characteristic of a "geneticist," was interested in the evolution of the genetic, or breeding systems, themselves. C. D. Darlington, "The Evolution of Genetic Systems," in Recent Advances in Cytology (London: Churchill, 1932), pp. 448-485, and C. D. Darlington, The Evolution of Genetic Systems (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1939).
110. T. M. Sonneborn, "On Inbreeding in Nature; and Immaturity," May 11, 1955; T. M. Sonneborn, "Is P. aurelia Doomed to Extinction?" May 13, 1955; T. M. Sonneborn, "P. bursaria and P. aurelia: Basis of the Differences in their Biology and Genetic Systems," May 25, 1955; and T. M. Sonneborn, "Evolution in Paramecium and Other Ciliates," June 4, 1955; unpublished research notes, TMS-LL. Sonneborn's discussions of genetic systems and breeding systems were informed by C. D. Darlington's treatments of the same. His explanatory interests differed significantly from Darlington's, however, in that the former, typical of a "systematist-naturalist," constructed an evolutionary account at an organismic level by relating the diverse biological properties of different protozoa to their breeding systems. The latter, however, more characteristic of a "geneticist," was interested in the evolution of the genetic, or breeding systems, themselves. C. D. Darlington, "The Evolution of Genetic Systems," in Recent Advances in Cytology (London: Churchill, 1932), pp. 448-485, and C. D. Darlington, The Evolution of Genetic Systems (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1939).
111. T. M. Sonneborn, "On Inbreeding in Nature; and Immaturity," May 11, 1955; T. M. Sonneborn, "Is P. aurelia Doomed to Extinction?" May 13, 1955; T. M. Sonneborn, "P. bursaria and P. aurelia: Basis of the Differences in their Biology and Genetic Systems," May 25, 1955; and T. M. Sonneborn, "Evolution in Paramecium and Other Ciliates," June 4, 1955; unpublished research notes, TMS-LL. Sonneborn's discussions of genetic systems and breeding systems were informed by C. D. Darlington's treatments of the same. His explanatory interests differed significantly from Darlington's, however, in that the former, typical of a "systematist-naturalist," constructed an evolutionary account at an organismic level by relating the diverse biological properties of different protozoa to their breeding systems. The latter, however, more characteristic of a "geneticist," was interested in the evolution
112. T. M. Sonneborn, "On Inbreeding in Nature; and Immaturity," May 11, 1955; T. M. Sonneborn, "Is P. aurelia Doomed to Extinction?" May 13, 1955; T. M. Sonneborn, "P. bursaria and P. aurelia: Basis of the Differences in their Biology and Genetic Systems," May 25, 1955; and T. M. Sonneborn, "Evolution in Paramecium and Other Ciliates," June 4, 1955; unpublished research notes, TMS-LL. Sonneborn's discussions of genetic systems and breeding systems were informed by C. D. Darlington's treatments of the same. His explanatory interests differed significantly from Darlington's, however, in that the former, typical of a "systematist-naturalist," constructed an evolutionary account at an organismic level by relating the diverse biological properties of different protozoa to their breeding systems. The latter, however, more characteristic of a "geneticist," was interested in the evolution of the genetic, or breeding systems, themselves. C. D. Darlington, "The Evolution of Genetic Systems," in Recent Advances in Cytology (London: Churchill, 1932), pp. 448-485, and C. D. Darlington, The Evolution of Genetic Systems (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1939).
113. Sonneborn was under intense pressure from Mayr to complete the manuscript. Sonneborn to Mayr, February 15, 1956 (above, n. 8); Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, May 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, May 21, 1956; Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, June 28, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, June 29, 1956; Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, July 9, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, August 8, 1956; TMS-LL.
114. Sonneborn was under intense pressure from Mayr to complete the manuscript. Sonneborn to Mayr, February 15, 1956 (above, n. 8); Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, May 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, May 21, 1956; Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, June 28, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, June 29, 1956; Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, July 9, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, August 8, 1956; TMS-LL.
115. Sonneborn was under intense pressure from Mayr to complete the manuscript. Sonneborn to Mayr, February 15, 1956 (above, n. 8); Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, May 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, May 21, 1956; Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, June 28, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, June 29, 1956; Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, July 9, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, August 8, 1956; TMS-LL.
116. Sonneborn was under intense pressure from Mayr to complete the manuscript. Sonneborn to Mayr, February 15, 1956 (above, n. 8); Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, May 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, May 21, 1956; Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, June 28, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, June 29, 1956; Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, July 9, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, August 8, 1956; TMS-LL.
117. Sonneborn was under intense pressure from Mayr to complete the manuscript. Sonneborn to Mayr, February 15, 1956 (above, n. 8); Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, May 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, May 21, 1956; Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, June 28, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, June 29, 1956; Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, July 9, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, August 8, 1956; TMS-LL.
118. Sonneborn was under intense pressure from Mayr to complete the manuscript. Sonneborn to Mayr, February 15, 1956 (above, n. 8); Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, May 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, May 21, 1956; Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, June 28, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, June 29, 1956; Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, July 9, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, August 8, 1956; TMS-LL.
119. Sonneborn was under intense pressure from Mayr to complete the manuscript. Sonneborn to Mayr, February 15, 1956 (above, n. 8); Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, May 17, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, May 21, 1956; Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, June 28, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, June 29, 1956; Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, July 9, 1956; T. M. Sonneborn to Ernst Mayr, August 8, 1956; TMS-LL.
120. Sonneborn, "Breeding Systems" (above, n. 13), p. 173.
121. Ibid., p. 174.
122. Ibid., pp. 174-175.
123. Caryonides are the first fission products (the first two daughter cells) of each cell that has undergone conjugation or autogamy. Depending on environmental conditions and variety-specific mechanisms of mating-type determination, which is controlled by the macronucleus, the two sister caryonides may express the same or different mating types. Any successful fertilization process, such as conjugation, autogamy, or selfing, initiates a new life cycle.
124. Sonneborn, "Breeding Systems" (above, n. 13), pp. 187-195.
125. Ibid., pp. 177, 195-196; see also p. 199.
126. Ibid., p. 199.
127. Ibid., pp. 200-201.
128. Mayr, "Difficulties and Importance of the Biological Species Concept" (above, n. 9), p. 381.
129. Beurton, "Ernst Mayr through Time" (above, n. 5), pp. 7-8. As Beurton illustrates, Mayr obscured these incongruities by maintaining a constant wording of the biological species definition throughout his many publications on the subject, despite the extreme variability of the ideas actually attached to these definitions.
130. Ibid., p. 7.
131. Sonneborn, "Breeding Systems" (above, n. 13), p. 201.
132. Ernst Mayr to T. M. Sonneborn, February 6, 1956; TMS-LL (emphasis original).
133. Sonneborn to Mayr, February 15, 1956 (above, n. 8).
134. Mayr wrote that "the papers are published essentially as given at Atlanta, with one exception. Dr. Sonneborn, when preparing his contribution, realized the need of a comprehensive survey of the species problem in the protozoans and particularly in the ciliates with their interesting and versatile modes of reproduction. He found that the nature of their population structure, whether they are inbreeders or outbreeders, is responsible for the specific aspects of much of their reproductive specialization. To gather the material with which to substantiate this new interpretation necessitated a review of the widely scattered literature and could not be brought to completion until well after the Atlanta meeting. Dr. Sonneborn's masterly synthesis, a fundamental contribution to the protozoan literature, was not available for the chairman's summation." Mayr, ed., The Species Problem (above, n. 2), p. iv. It is unclear when Mayr prepared the final version of his summation. Sonneborn and Brooks were the last speakers to send their final manuscripts to Mayr. On July 9, Mayr had not yet received either manuscript. Sonneborn sent his manuscript to Mayr on August 8. Mayr to Sonneborn, July 9, 1956 (above, n. 59), and Sonneborn to Mayr, August 8, 1956 (above, n. 59).
135. Mayr wrote that "the papers are published essentially as given at Atlanta, with one exception. Dr. Sonneborn, when preparing his contribution, realized the need of a comprehensive survey of the species problem in the protozoans and particularly in the ciliates with their interesting and versatile modes of reproduction. He found that the nature of their population structure, whether they are inbreeders or outbreeders, is responsible for the specific aspects of much of their reproductive specialization. To gather the material with which to substantiate this new interpretation necessitated a review of the widely scattered literature and could not be brought to completion until well after the Atlanta meeting. Dr. Sonneborn's masterly synthesis, a fundamental contribution to the protozoan literature, was not available for the chairman's summation." Mayr, ed., The Species Problem (above, n. 2), p. iv. It is unclear when Mayr prepared the final version of his summation. Sonneborn and Brooks were the last speakers to send their final manuscripts to Mayr. On July 9, Mayr had not yet received either manuscript. Sonneborn sent his manuscript to Mayr on August 8. Mayr to Sonneborn, July 9, 1956 (above, n. 59), and Sonneborn to Mayr, August 8, 1956 (above, n. 59).
136. Mayr wrote that "the papers are published essentially as given at Atlanta, with one exception. Dr. Sonneborn, when preparing his contribution, realized the need of a comprehensive survey of the species problem in the protozoans and particularly in the ciliates with their interesting and versatile modes of reproduction. He found that the nature of their population structure, whether they are inbreeders or outbreeders, is responsible for the specific aspects of much of their reproductive specialization. To gather the material with which to substantiate this new interpretation necessitated a review of the widely scattered literature and could not be brought to completion until well after the Atlanta meeting. Dr. Sonneborn's masterly synthesis, a fundamental contribution to the protozoan literature, was not available for the chairman's summation." Mayr, ed., The Species Problem (above, n. 2), p. iv. It is unclear when Mayr prepared the final version of his summation. Sonneborn and Brooks were the last speakers to send their final manuscripts to Mayr. On July 9, Mayr had not yet received either manuscript. Sonneborn sent his manuscript to Mayr on August 8. Mayr to Sonneborn, July 9, 1956 (above, n. 59), and Sonneborn to Mayr, August 8, 1956 (above, n. 59).
137. Mayr, "Difficulties and Importance of the Biological Species Concept" (above, n. 9), p. 380.
138. Ernst Mayr, "Concepts of Classification and Nomenclature in Higher Organisms and Microorganisms," Proceedings of the New York Academy of Sciences 56 (1953): 391-397, 395.
139. Mayr, "The Bearing of the New Systematics" (above, n. 4), p. 230.
140. Sonneborn, "Breeding Systems" (above, n. 13), p. 202.
141. Ibid.
142. Ibid., pp. 202-206.
143. Ibid., p. 206.
144. Ibid., pp. 225-226.
145. Ibid., pp. 282-283; also 283-294.
146. Ibid., p. 235, and Sonneborn, "On Dobzhansky's Views" (above, n. 48). See also Sewall Wright, "Breeding Structure of Populations in Relation to Speciation," The American Naturalist 74 (1940): 232-248.
147. Ibid., p. 235, and Sonneborn, "On Dobzhansky's Views" (above, n. 48). See also Sewall Wright, "Breeding Structure of Populations in Relation to Speciation," The American Naturalist 74 (1940): 232-248.
148. Ibid., p. 235, and Sonneborn, "On Dobzhansky's Views" (above, n. 48). See also Sewall Wright, "Breeding Structure of Populations in Relation to Speciation," The American Naturalist 74 (1940): 232-248.
149. Sonneborn, "Breeding Systems" (above, n. 13), pp. 286-287.
150. Ibid., p. 288.
151. Ibid., pp. 288-289.
152. Ibid., p. 296.
153. Ibid., p. 290.
154. Ibid., p. 295.
155. Ibid., pp. 289, 295.
156. Ibid., p. 291.
157. Ernst Mayr, Draft of "Atlanta Summation," Symposium on the Species Problem, December 28 and 29, 1955; TMS-LL, and Mayr, "Difficulties and Importance of the Biological Species Concept" (above, n. 9), p. 379.
158. Ernst Mayr, Draft of "Atlanta Summation," Symposium on the Species Problem, December 28 and 29, 1955; TMS-LL, and Mayr, "Difficulties and Importance of the Biological Species Concept" (above, n. 9), p. 379.
159. Mayr, "Difficulties and Importance of the Biological Species Concept" (above, n. 9), p. 380. Mayr relied here and subsequently upon the argument advanced contemporaneously by Ellsworth Dougherty that asexuality is a secondary characteristic derived from the more primitive evolutionary state of sexuality. Ellsworth Dougherty, "Comparative Evolution and the Origin of Sexuality," Systematic Zoology 4 (1955): 23-51.
160. Mayr, "Difficulties and Importance of the Biological Species Concept" (above, n. 9), p. 380. Mayr relied here and subsequently upon the argument advanced contemporaneously by Ellsworth Dougherty that asexuality is a secondary characteristic derived from the more primitive evolutionary state of sexuality. Ellsworth Dougherty, "Comparative Evolution and the Origin of Sexuality," Systematic Zoology 4 (1955): 23-51.
161. G. G. Simpson, "Review of The Species Problem," Science 127 (31 January 1958): 245.
162. Ibid.
163. T. M. Sonneborn to Nelson Hairston, February 18, 1958; TMS-LL. Sonneborn's response was in anticipation of Hairston's forthcoming critical article which he had not yet seen, "Observations on the Ecology of Paramecium, with Comments on the Species Problem," Evolution 12 (1958): 440-450. Hairston rejected Sonneborn's claim to the impracticality of species designation by utilizing standard stocks that Sonneborn had provided to him, to identify, over a period of nine months, five "varieties" of P. aurelia cultured from the wild. However, this did not refute the argument maintained by Sonneborn, who assumed that standard stocks might not always be available for distribution to other researchers. See T. M. Sonneborn, "The Paramecium aurelia Complex of Fourteen Sibling Species," Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 94 (1975): 155-178.
164. T. M. Sonneborn to Nelson Hairston, February 18, 1958; TMS-LL. Sonneborn's response was in anticipation of Hairston's forthcoming critical article which he had not yet seen, "Observations on the Ecology of Paramecium, with Comments on the Species Problem," Evolution 12 (1958): 440-450. Hairston rejected Sonneborn's claim to the impracticality of species designation by utilizing standard stocks that Sonneborn had provided to him, to identify, over a period of nine months, five "varieties" of P. aurelia cultured from the wild. However, this did not refute the argument maintained by Sonneborn, who assumed that standard stocks might not always be available for distribution to other researchers. See T. M. Sonneborn, "The Paramecium aurelia Complex of Fourteen Sibling Species," Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 94 (1975): 155-178.
165. G. Ledyard Stebbins, "The Comparative Evolution of Genetic Systems," in Sol Tax, ed., Evolution After Darwin, Volume I, The Evolution of Life: Its Origin, History and Future (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960), pp. 197-226, 219.
166. Ernst Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 64-65, 418, and the abridgment of this volume, Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1970), p. 40.
167. Ernst Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 64-65, 418, and the abridgment of this volume, Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1970), p. 40.
168. See, for example, Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 27-29, 49, and 411-412; Ernst Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969), pp. 30-31; Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982), pp. 283-284; and Ernst Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), pp. 354-355.
169. See, for example, Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 27-29, 49, and 411-412; Ernst Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969), pp. 30-31; Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982), pp. 283-284; and Ernst Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), pp. 354-355.
170. See, for example, Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 27-29, 49, and 411-412; Ernst Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969), pp. 30-31; Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982), pp. 283-284; and Ernst Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), pp. 354-355.
171. See, for example, Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 27-29, 49, and 411-412; Ernst Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969), pp. 30-31; Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982), pp. 283-284; and Ernst Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), pp. 354-355.
172. See, for example, Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 21-22; Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (above, n. 100), pp. 4-5, 27-29; Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 13-14; Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (above, n. 100), pp. 253-254; Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (above, n. 100), p. 336; and Beurton, "Ernst Mayr through Time" (above, n. 5).
173. See, for example, Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 21-22; Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (above, n. 100), pp. 4-5, 27-29; Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 13-14; Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (above, n. 100), pp. 253-254; Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (above, n. 100), p. 336; and Beurton, "Ernst Mayr through Time" (above, n. 5).
174. See, for example, Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 21-22; Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (above, n. 100), pp. 4-5, 27-29; Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 13-14; Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (above, n. 100), pp. 253-254; Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (above, n. 100), p. 336; and Beurton, "Ernst Mayr through Time" (above, n. 5).
175. See, for example, Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 21-22; Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (above, n. 100), pp. 4-5, 27-29; Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 13-14; Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (above, n. 100), pp. 253-254; Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (above, n. 100), p. 336; and Beurton, "Ernst Mayr through Time" (above, n. 5).
176. See, for example, Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 21-22; Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (above, n. 100), pp. 4-5, 27-29; Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 13-14; Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (above, n. 100), pp. 253-254; Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (above, n. 100), p. 336; and Beurton, "Ernst Mayr through Time" (above, n. 5).
177. See, for example, Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 21-22; Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (above, n. 100), pp. 4-5, 27-29; Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution (above, n. 99), pp. 13-14; Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (above, n. 100), pp. 253-254; Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (above, n. 100), p. 336; and Beurton, "Ernst Mayr through Time" (above, n. 5).
178. Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (above, n. 100), p. 253. However, Mayr did write that "this clear recognition of the fundamental difference between the species taxon and the species category is a development of only the last few decades, and has finally eliminated a major source of confusion, at least in principle. Many controversies, supposedly about the species concept, actually concerned the recognition of species taxa, and the assignment of individual variants (or other phena) to species taxa ...Most taxonomists, including myself, were confused about this until a few years ago" (p. 254).
179. George Gaylord Simpson, Principles of Animal Taxonomy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), pp. 152-154, and 161-163. Simpson did include in his discussion of sibling species, however, a criticism of Sonneborn and protozoa that simultaneously seemed only to strengthen Sonneborn's claims and credibility. He wrote that "since most species have in fact been defined only anatomically, there is some possibility that sibling species are really very common or practically universal in nature. If so, the genetical species [Mayr's biological species definition], while retaining its theoretical interest, would be virtually valueless in the actual practice of classification. That conclusion has in fact been urged by Sonneborn (1957), but on evidence of protists, which are in this respect not on a par with most metazoans, and with questionable force even as regards protists [sic]." He added in a footnote that "It is a great but not completely unfair oversimplification of the argument to say that Sonneborn considers the recognition of sibling genetical species impractical because he has recognized many of them [sic]. It is further probable that sibling species are much more common in protists than in animals" (pp. 158-159).
180. Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (above, n. 100), pp. 270, 281-282. Mayr continues to maintain that Sonneborn was a "typologist." Personal communication, December 20, 1997.
181. Michael Dietrich, "Richard Goldschmidt's 'Heresies' and the Evolutionary Synthesis," Journal of the History of Biology 28 (1995): 431-461. See also, Stephen J. Gould, "The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis," in Marjorie Grene, ed., Dimensions of Darwinism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 71-91; David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber, "Species, Speciation, and Systematics in the Modern Synthesis," in Darwinism Evolving: Systems, Dynamics, and the Genealogy of Natural Selection (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995), pp. 299-328, and William Provine, "Progress in Evolution and the Meaning of Life," in M. Nitecki, ed., Evolutionary Progress (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 49-74.
182. Michael Dietrich, "Richard Goldschmidt's 'Heresies' and the Evolutionary Synthesis," Journal of the History of Biology 28 (1995): 431-461. See also, Stephen J. Gould, "The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis," in Marjorie Grene, ed., Dimensions of Darwinism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 71-91; David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber, "Species, Speciation, and Systematics in the Modern Synthesis," in Darwinism Evolving: Systems, Dynamics, and the Genealogy of Natural Selection (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995), pp. 299-328, and William Provine, "Progress in Evolution and the Meaning of Life," in M. Nitecki, ed., Evolutionary Progress (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 49-74.
183. Michael Dietrich, "Richard Goldschmidt's 'Heresies' and the Evolutionary Synthesis," Journal of the History of Biology 28 (1995): 431-461. See also, Stephen J. Gould, "The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis," in Marjorie Grene, ed., Dimensions of Darwinism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 71-91; David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber, "Species, Speciation, and Systematics in the Modern Synthesis," in Darwinism Evolving: Systems, Dynamics, and the Genealogy of Natural Selection (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995), pp. 299-328, and William Provine, "Progress in Evolution and the Meaning of Life," in M. Nitecki, ed., Evolutionary Progress (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 49-74.
184. Michael Dietrich, "Richard Goldschmidt's 'Heresies' and the Evolutionary Synthesis," Journal of the History of Biology 28 (1995): 431-461. See also, Stephen J. Gould, "The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis," in Marjorie Grene, ed., Dimensions of Darwinism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 71-91; David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber, "Species, Speciation, and Systematics in the Modern Synthesis," in Darwinism Evolving: Systems, Dynamics, and the Genealogy of Natural Selection (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995), pp. 299-328, and William Provine, "Progress in Evolution and the Meaning of Life," in M. Nitecki, ed., Evolutionary Progress (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 49-74.
185. Olby, The Path to the Double Helix (above, n. 27), pp. 225-247; E. J. Yoxen, "Where Does Schroedinger's 'What is Life?' Belong in the History of Molecular Biology?" History of Science 17 (1979): 17-52; E. J. Yoxen, "Giving Life a New Meaning: The Rise of the Molecular Biology Establishment," in Norbert Elias, Herminio Martins, and Richard Whitley, eds., Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1982), pp. 123-143; Evelyn Fox Keller, "Physics and the Emergence of Molecular Biology," Journal of the History of Biology 23 (1990): 389-409; Sahotra Sarkar, "What is Life? Revisited," BioScience 41 (1991): 631-634; and Lily E. Kay, "Who Wrote the Book of Life? Information and the Transformation of Molecular Biology, 1945-1955," Science in Context 8 (1995): 609-634.
186. Olby, The Path to the Double Helix (above, n. 27), pp. 225-247; E. J. Yoxen, "Where Does Schroedinger's 'What is Life?' Belong in the History of Molecular Biology?" History of Science 17 (1979): 17-52; E. J. Yoxen, "Giving Life a New Meaning: The Rise of the Molecular Biology Establishment," in Norbert Elias, Herminio Martins, and Richard Whitley, eds., Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1982), pp. 123-143; Evelyn Fox Keller, "Physics and the Emergence of Molecular Biology," Journal of the History of Biology 23 (1990): 389-409; Sahotra Sarkar, "What is Life? Revisited," BioScience 41 (1991): 631-634; and Lily E. Kay, "Who Wrote the Book of Life? Information and the Transformation of Molecular Biology, 1945-1955," Science in Context 8 (1995): 609-634.
187. Olby, The Path to the Double Helix (above, n. 27), pp. 225-247; E. J. Yoxen, "Where Does Schroedinger's 'What is Life?' Belong in the History of Molecular Biology?" History of Science 17 (1979): 17-52; E. J. Yoxen, "Giving Life a New Meaning: The Rise of the Molecular Biology Establishment," in Norbert Elias, Herminio Martins, and Richard Whitley, eds., Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1982), pp. 123-143; Evelyn Fox Keller, "Physics and the Emergence of Molecular Biology," Journal of the History of Biology 23 (1990): 389-409; Sahotra Sarkar, "What is Life? Revisited," BioScience 41 (1991): 631-634; and Lily E. Kay, "Who Wrote the Book of Life? Information and the Transformation of Molecular Biology, 1945-1955," Science in Context 8 (1995): 609-634.
188. Olby, The Path to the Double Helix (above, n. 27), pp. 225-247; E. J. Yoxen, "Where Does Schroedinger's 'What is Life?' Belong in the History of Molecular Biology?" History of Science 17 (1979): 17-52; E. J. Yoxen, "Giving Life a New Meaning: The Rise of the Molecular Biology Establishment," in Norbert Elias, Herminio Martins, and Richard Whitley, eds., Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1982), pp. 123-143; Evelyn Fox Keller, "Physics and the Emergence of Molecular Biology," Journal of the History of Biology 23 (1990): 389-409; Sahotra Sarkar, "What is Life? Revisited," BioScience 41 (1991): 631-634; and Lily E. Kay, "Who Wrote the Book of Life? Information and the Transformation of Molecular Biology, 1945-1955," Science in Context 8 (1995): 609-634.
189. Olby, The Path to the Double Helix (above, n. 27), pp. 225-247; E. J. Yoxen, "Where Does Schroedinger's 'What is Life?' Belong in the History of Molecular Biology?" History of Science 17 (1979): 17-52; E. J. Yoxen, "Giving Life a New Meaning: The Rise of the Molecular Biology Establishment," in Norbert Elias, Herminio Martins, and Richard Whitley, eds., Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1982), pp. 123-143; Evelyn Fox Keller, "Physics and the Emergence of Molecular Biology," Journal of the History of Biology 23 (1990): 389-409; Sahotra Sarkar, "What is Life? Revisited," BioScience 41 (1991): 631-634; and Lily E. Kay, "Who Wrote the Book of Life? Information and the Transformation of Molecular Biology, 1945-1955," Science in Context 8 (1995): 609-634.
190. Olby, The Path to the Double Helix (above, n. 27), pp. 225-247; E. J. Yoxen, "Where Does Schroedinger's 'What is Life?' Belong in the History of Molecular Biology?" History of Science 17 (1979): 17-52; E. J. Yoxen, "Giving Life a New Meaning: The Rise of the Molecular Biology Establishment," in Norbert Elias, Herminio Martins, and Richard Whitley, eds., Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1982), pp. 123-143; Evelyn Fox Keller, "Physics and the Emergence of Molecular Biology," Journal of the History of Biology 23 (1990): 389-409; Sahotra Sarkar, "What is Life? Revisited," BioScience 41 (1991): 631-634; and Lily E. Kay, "Who Wrote the Book of Life? Information and the Transformation of Molecular Biology, 1945-1955," Science in Context 8 (1995): 609-634.
191. Keller, A Feeling for the Organism (above, n. 12).
192. Sonneborn, "P. bursaria and P. aurelia: Basis of the Differences" (above, n. 58). See also Sonneborn, "Breeding Systems" (above, n. 13), pp. 287-288.
193. Sonneborn, "P. bursaria and P. aurelia: Basis of the Differences" (above, n. 58). See also Sonneborn, "Breeding Systems" (above, n. 13), pp. 287-288.
194. See, for example, T. M. Sonneborn, "The Gene and Cell Differentiation," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 46 (1960): 149-160; T. M. Sonneborn, "Gene Action in Development," Proceedings of the Royal Society 176 (1970): 347-366; and T. M. Sonneborn, "Genetics of Cellular Differentiation: Stable Nuclear Differentiation in Eucaryotic Unicells," Annual Review of Genetics 11 (1976): 349-367. See also Jan Sapp, "Concepts of Organization: The Leverage of Ciliate Protozoa," in Scott F. Gilbert, ed., A Conceptual History of Modern Embryology (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), pp. 229-255.
195. See, for example, T. M. Sonneborn, "The Gene and Cell Differentiation," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 46 (1960): 149-160; T. M. Sonneborn, "Gene Action in Development," Proceedings of the Royal Society 176 (1970): 347-366; and T. M. Sonneborn, "Genetics of Cellular Differentiation: Stable Nuclear Differentiation in Eucaryotic Unicells," Annual Review of Genetics 11 (1976): 349-367. See also Jan Sapp, "Concepts of Organization: The Leverage of Ciliate Protozoa," in Scott F. Gilbert, ed., A Conceptual History of Modern Embryology (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), pp. 229-255.
196. See, for example, T. M. Sonneborn, "The Gene and Cell Differentiation," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 46 (1960): 149-160; T. M. Sonneborn, "Gene Action in Development," Proceedings of the Royal Society 176 (1970): 347-366; and T. M. Sonneborn, "Genetics of Cellular Differentiation: Stable Nuclear Differentiation in Eucaryotic Unicells," Annual Review of Genetics 11 (1976): 349-367. See also Jan Sapp, "Concepts of Organization: The Leverage of Ciliate Protozoa," in Scott F. Gilbert, ed., A Conceptual History of Modern Embryology (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), pp. 229-255.
197. See, for example, T. M. Sonneborn, "The Gene and Cell Differentiation," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 46 (1960): 149-160; T. M. Sonneborn, "Gene Action in Development," Proceedings of the Royal Society 176 (1970): 347-366; and T. M. Sonneborn, "Genetics of Cellular Differentiation: Stable Nuclear Differentiation in Eucaryotic Unicells," Annual Review of Genetics 11 (1976): 349-367. See also Jan Sapp, "Concepts of Organization: The Leverage of Ciliate Protozoa," in Scott F. Gilbert, ed., A Conceptual History of Modern Embryology (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), pp. 229-255.
198. Sonneborn, "The Paramecium aurelia Complex" (above, n. 97), pp. 157-158. See also, T. M. Sonneborn, "Paramecium aurelia" in Robert C. King, ed., Handbook of Genetics (New York: Plenum Press, 1974), pp. 469-594.
199. Sonneborn, "The Paramecium aurelia Complex" (above, n. 97), pp. 157-158. See also, T. M. Sonneborn, "Paramecium aurelia" in Robert C. King, ed., Handbook of Genetics (New York: Plenum Press, 1974), pp. 469-594.