Hugo de vries no mendelian?

Summary

It is argued that Hugo de Vries's conversion to Mendelism did not agree with his previous theoretical framework. De Vries regarded the number of offspring expressing a certain character as a hereditary quality, intrinsic to the state of the pangene involved. His was a shortlived conversion since after the ‘rediscovery’ he failed to unify his older views with Mendelism. De Vries was never very much of a Mendelian. The usual stories of the Dutch ‘rediscovery’ need, therefore, a considerable reshaping.

Parts of this paper were presented earlier at the Symposium Mendel und seine Zeit und die Wiederentdeckung, 1–3 February 1984, Vienna (the Proceedings of this Symposium will appear in the Folia Mendeliana). A further presentation took place at the conference History of the Life Sciences, 9–11 July 1984, Ilkley. Finally, these views were presented in what we amicably have decided to label ‘The Amsterdam Debate’ together with Lindley Darden at the Hugo de Vries Laboratorium, 14 January 1985, Amsterdam. The audiences of these presentations have been very helpful in sharpening and improving my thinking. At the moment I am trying to get a complete overview on the material present in the Hugo de Vries archives, Hugo de Vries Laboratorium, Plantage Middenlaan 2A, 1018 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands. I am preparing other papers on Hugo de Vries to be written after completion of the study of those archives. This present paper is, just as was my first presentation of these views, dedicated to Robert C. Olby. His first book on the Origins of Mendelism (1966, London) has been a great stimulus to me. He has been kind enough to send me the chapter on the ‘rediscovery’ prepared for the second edition of this book (forthcoming). The many stimulating discussions we had, have been extremely helpful. I want to thank Bob, as well as Judy, for the wonderful hospitality I received in snow-covered Ilkley. The title of the present paper is, of course, chosen to pay tribute to Bob's controversial paper on Mendel: R. C. Olby. ‘Mendel no Mendelian?’ History of Science, 17, (1979), 53–72.

Parts of this paper were presented earlier at the Symposium Mendel und seine Zeit und die Wiederentdeckung, 1–3 February 1984, Vienna (the Proceedings of this Symposium will appear in the Folia Mendeliana). A further presentation took place at the conference History of the Life Sciences, 9–11 July 1984, Ilkley. Finally, these views were presented in what we amicably have decided to label ‘The Amsterdam Debate’ together with Lindley Darden at the Hugo de Vries Laboratorium, 14 January 1985, Amsterdam. The audiences of these presentations have been very helpful in sharpening and improving my thinking. At the moment I am trying to get a complete overview on the material present in the Hugo de Vries archives, Hugo de Vries Laboratorium, Plantage Middenlaan 2A, 1018 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands. I am preparing other papers on Hugo de Vries to be written after completion of the study of those archives. This present paper is, just as was my first presentation of these views, dedicated to Robert C. Olby. His first book on the Origins of Mendelism (1966, London) has been a great stimulus to me. He has been kind enough to send me the chapter on the ‘rediscovery’ prepared for the second edition of this book (forthcoming). The many stimulating discussions we had, have been extremely helpful. I want to thank Bob, as well as Judy, for the wonderful hospitality I received in snow-covered Ilkley. The title of the present paper is, of course, chosen to pay tribute to Bob's controversial paper on Mendel: R. C. Olby. ‘Mendel no Mendelian?’ History of Science, 17, (1979), 53–72.

Notes

Parts of this paper were presented earlier at the Symposium Mendel und seine Zeit und die Wiederentdeckung, 1–3 February 1984, Vienna (the Proceedings of this Symposium will appear in the Folia Mendeliana). A further presentation took place at the conference History of the Life Sciences, 9–11 July 1984, Ilkley. Finally, these views were presented in what we amicably have decided to label ‘The Amsterdam Debate’ together with Lindley Darden at the Hugo de Vries Laboratorium, 14 January 1985, Amsterdam. The audiences of these presentations have been very helpful in sharpening and improving my thinking. At the moment I am trying to get a complete overview on the material present in the Hugo de Vries archives, Hugo de Vries Laboratorium, Plantage Middenlaan 2A, 1018 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands. I am preparing other papers on Hugo de Vries to be written after completion of the study of those archives. This present paper is, just as was my first presentation of these views, dedicated to Robert C. Olby. His first book on the Origins of Mendelism (1966, London) has been a great stimulus to me. He has been kind enough to send me the chapter on the ‘rediscovery’ prepared for the second edition of this book (forthcoming). The many stimulating discussions we had, have been extremely helpful. I want to thank Bob, as well as Judy, for the wonderful hospitality I received in snow-covered Ilkley. The title of the present paper is, of course, chosen to pay tribute to Bob's controversial paper on Mendel: R. C. Olby. ‘Mendel no Mendelian?’ History of Science, 17, (1979), 53–72.