- Stern , C. and Sherwood , E.R. , eds. 1966 . The origin of genetics; a Mendel source book x – xii . San Francisco A. H. Sturtevant, A history of genetics (1965, New York), 29; and L. C. Dunn, A short history of genetics (1965, New York), 76. Tschermak's first 1900 paper is readily available in English translation: E. Tschermak (trans. Aloha Hannah), ‘Concerning artificial crossing in Pisum sativum’ (1900), in Genetics 35 (1950), supplement to Number 5, 42–47.
- Zirkle , C. 1968 . The role of Liberty Hyde Bailey and Hugo de Vries in the rediscovery of Mendelism . J. hist. biol. , 1 : 205 – 218 . G. Allen, Life science in the twentieth century (1975, New York), 48, 50; L. Darden, ‘Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the discovery of segregation’, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 7 (1976), 127–169 (pp. 153–163, 167); and P. van der Pas, ‘Hugo de Vries and Gregor Mendel,’ Folia Mendeliana, 11 (1976), 3–16.
- It is curious that no notice has been taken of the 1897 paper, since de Vries did refer to it in his 1899 paper, which has been analyzed by historians de Vries H. Hybridising of monstrosities J. Roy. Hortic. Soc. 1900 24 69 75 (p. 71)
- This paper was translated into French, and I shall cite the translation de Vries H. Monstruosités héréditaires his Opera e periodicis collata Utrecht 1918–1927 6 16 29 7 vols. (p. 24)
- de Vries , H. 1889 . Intracellular pangenesis 1910 – 1910 . Chicago (trans. C. S. Gager
- Focke , W.O. 1881 . Die Pflanzen-Mischlinge 65 – 68 . Berlin Mendel had also crossed Lychnis vespertina and Lychnis diurna in 1869. He wrote to C. Nägeli in July 1870 that he had obtained 200 uniform hybrids, which he expected to flower in August. He wrote again in September 1870 describing a curious 1:3 (♂:♀) sex ratio among the hybrids. The next year 1871 was apparently the last one in which he conducted plant hybridization experiments. We do not know if Mendel continued his Lychnis experiment in that year to form a F2 generation. Only one letter after 1871 from Mendel to Nägeli exists, and it does not mention Lychnis. Of course, de Vries could not have known of Mendel's Lychnis experiment. See C. Stern and E. R. Sherwood (footnote 1), 93, 96–102.
- The French version of the first sentence in this crucial passage is: ‘Le semis de 1894 était pour les 2/3 pubescent et pour 1/3 dépourvu de poils de Vries H. Hybridising of monstrosities J. Roy. Hortic. Soc. 1900 6 25 25 24
- Environ 80% avaient le labelle organé, environ 20% avaient les fleurs tout-à-fait jaunes Hybridising of monstrosities J. Roy. Hortic. Soc. de Vries H. 1900 6 22 23 24
- de Vries , H. 1900 . Hybridising of monstrosities . J. Roy. Hortic. Soc. , 24 : 69 – 69 .
- de Vries , H. 1900 . Hybridising of monstrosities . J. Roy. Hortic. Soc. , 24 : 70 – 70 .
- For example, he observed that although the F1 hybrids were hairy, they were less hairy than the parent Lychnis diurna de Vries H. Hybridising of monstrosities J. Roy. Hortic. Soc. 1900 24 72 72
- de Vries , H. 1900 . Hybridising of monstrosities . J. Roy. Hortic. Soc. , 24 : 74 – 74 .
- de Vries , H. 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetze der Bastarde . Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Gesellsch. , 18 : 83 – 90 . (p. 87)
- Zirkle , C. 1968 . The role of Liberty Hyde Bailey and Hugo de Vries in the rediscovery of Mendelism . J. hist. biol. , 1 : 212 – 216 .
- de Vries , H. 1900 . Hybridising of monstrosities . J. Roy. Hortic. Soc. , 24 : 73 – 73 .
- de Vries , H. 1900 . Hybridising of monstrosities . J. Roy. Hortic. Soc. , 24 : 72 – 72 .
- de Vries , H. 1900 . Hybridising of monstrosities . J. Roy. Hortic. Soc. , 24 : 73 – 73 .
- De Vries had already remarked on this inconstancy in 1897: ‘the variety seemed to me sensibly constant and pure, it appeared to deviate only from time to time by some rare individuals with white flowers but always deprived of hair’ de Vries H. Monstruosités héréditaires his Opera e periodicis collata Utrecht 1918–1927 6 25 25 7 vols.
- de Vries , H. 1900 . Hybridising of monstrosities . J. Roy. Hortic. Soc. , 24 : 75 – 75 .
- The F2 plants were offspring of two hybrids—in one case 54 of 307 (18%) were pale yellow, in the other case 81 of 310 (26%) were pale yellow de Vries H. Die Mutationstheorie: Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Entstehung von Artem im Pflanzenreich Leipzig 1901–1903 2 152 153 2 vols.
- de Vries , H. 1901–1903 . Die Mutationstheorie: Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Entstehung von Artem im Pflanzenreich Vol. 2 , 153 – 153 . Leipzig 2 vols.
- de Vries , H. 1901–1903 . Die Mutationstheorie: Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Entstehung von Artem im Pflanzenreich Vol. 2 , 184 – 185 . Leipzig 2 vols. In 1903 de Vries reported a second dihybrid cross with Lychnis, begun in 1899. The two traits followed were presence or absence of hair and presence or absence of stalk (‘Stengel’). His F2 generation of 1901 exhibited a better approximation to the expected 9:3:3:1 ratio (286:128:96:42). The two component 3:1 ratios were 414:138 (25% hairless) and 382:170 (31% stalkless). In the Appendix, see sub-section 6.3.
- de Vries , H. 1909–1910 . The mutation theory; experiments and observations on the origin of species in the vegetable kingdom Vol. 1 , Chicago trans. J. B. Farmer and A. D. Darbishire: 2 vols. v.
- The 1903 figure of 22·5% came from the combined data of two experiments. One of the two experiments did give 28% recessive (25 of 90) de Vries H. Die Mutationstheorie; Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Entstehung von Artem im Pflanzenreich Leipzig 1901–1903 2 165 165 2 vols.
- de Vries , H. 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetze der Bastarde . Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Gesellsch. , 18 : 87 – 88 .
- There is an internal inconsistency in the 1900 German paper. De Vries first gave 28% recessive, but then gave 25% recessive for the F2 de Vries H. Das Spaltungsgesetze der Bastarde Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Gesellsch. 1900 18 87 87
- The entire experiment was repeated between 1894 and 1897; see the Appendix for its results de Vries H. Die Mutationstheorie; Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Entstehung von Artem im Pflanzenreich Leipzig 1901–1903 2 165 166 2 vols.
- Focke , W.O. 1881 . Die Pflanzen-Mischlinge 510 – 510 . Berlin 517, 407–408.
- For a discussion of these investigations in the context of the discovery of double fertilization in flowering plants, see Dunn L.C. Xenia and the origin of genetics Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. 1973 117 105 111
- de Vries , H. 1900 . Sur la fécondation hybride de l'endosperme chez le maís . Rev. gén. de botanique , 12 : 129 – 137 . (pp. 133–134).
- de Vries , H. 1899 . Sur la fécondation hybride de l'albumen . Comptes rendus l'Acad. Sci. , 129 : 973 – 975 . (p. 974); compare his (footnote 30), 135.
- de Vries , H. 1900 . Sur la fécondation hybride de l'endosperme chez le maís . Rev. gén. de botanique , 12 : 135 – 135 . and (footnote 31), 974–975.
- de Vries , H. 1900 . Sur la fécondation hybride de l'endosperme chez le maís . Rev. gén. de botanique , 12 : 135 – 135 . R. Olby, Origins of Mendelism (1966, New York), 144: and C. Zirkle (footnote 2), 214.
- ‘Environ un quart des graines étaient sucrées, les trois autres quarts étaient amylacées’. This sentence was in both of de Vries' xenia papers. J. Heimans has twice stated that de Vries ‘expounded his law of hybrid segregation’ in his first xenia paper, published in December 1899. But de Vries clearly meant by ‘das Spaltungsgesetz’ an explanation for the ratios, and there is no explanation at all for the 3/4:1/4 ratio in the two xenia papers de Vries H. Sur la fécondation hybride de l'endosperme chez le maís Rev. gén. de botanique 1900 12 136 136 and (footnote 31), 975). See footnote 52 below. J. Heimans, ‘Hugo de Vries and the gene concept’, American naturalist. 96 (1962), 93–104 (p. 98); and ‘Hugo de Vries and the gene theory’, in Human implications of scientific advance. Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of the History of Science (ed. E. G. Forbes: 1978, Edinburgh), 469–480 (p. 475).
- Dunn . 1973 . Xenia and the origin of genetics . Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. , 117 : 111 – 111 . mistakenly gave April 1900 and August 1900 as the submission and publication dates, respectively, for the longer xenia paper. The correct dates are December 1899 and April 1900.
- Correns , C. 1901 . Bastarde zwischen Maisrassen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Xenien . Biobliotheca botanica , 53 : v – xii . 1–161 (p. v).
- Correns , C. 1899 . Untersuchungen über die Xenien bei Zea Mays' . Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Gesellsch. , 17 : 410 – 417 . (p. 411). By December 1899 Correns had discovered the Mendelian laws. In 1901 he wrote that the ‘remarkable regularities’ that appeared in crosses of maize hybrids could be understood once he had found similar, but much clearer, regularities in crosses of pea hybrids (C. Correns (footnote 37), v).
- Correns , C. 1899 . Untersuchungen über die Xenien bei Zea Mays . Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Gesellsch. , 17 : 417 – 417 .
- Zirkle , C. 1968 . The role of Liberty Hyde Bailey and Hugo de Vries in the rediscovery of Mendelism . J. hist. biol. , 1 : 214 – 215 .
- I do not intend to discuss this issue. Both Sturtevant and Olby accepted de Vries's independence from Mendel, but both argued that de Vries initially intended to suppress his knowledge of Mendel's priority. Sturtevant suggested that the reference to Mendel in Correns's xenia paper was what changed de Vries's mind. Sturtevant A.H. The origin of genetics; a Mendel source book San Francisco 1966 28 28 R. Olby (footnote 34), 128. But compare P. van der Pas (footnote 2), 5–6.
- de Vries , H. 1900 . Sur les unités des caractères specifiques et leur application a l'étude des hybrides . Rev. gén. de botanique , 12 : 257 – 271 . (pp. 269–271). De Vries performed an extensive backcross experiment in 1900 with maize (hybrid ♀ x sweet ♂) in which he found 49·5% of 2156 kernels (from eight ears) were recessive (sweet) and 50·5% were dominant (starchy) (H. de Vries (footnote 20), vol. 2, 176–177).
- Correns , C. 1900 . Botanische Zeitung , 58 : 235 – 238 . (p. 236)
- Singleton , W.R. 1935 . Early researches in maize genetics . J. heredity , 26 : 49 – 59 . and 120–126.
- Lazenby , W.R. 1883 . Crossing varieties of corn . Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station. Annual report , 2 : 63 – 65 . (p. 64)
- Kellerman , W.A. and Swingle , W.T. 1889 . Crossed corn the second year . Kansas State Agricultural College Experiment Station. Annual Report , 2 : 334 – 353 . (pp. 341, 343)
- Kellerman , W.A. and Swingle , W.T. 1890 . Crossed varieties of corn, second and third years . Kansas State Agricultural College Experiment Station. Bulletin , 17 : 151 – 174 . (pp. 172–173). W. R. Singleton (footnote 44). 56–57.
- Hays , W.M. 1890 . Improving corn—cross-fertilization and seleclion [sic] . University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. Bulletin , 11 : 89 – 95 . (p. 90)
- de Vries , H. 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetze der Bastarde . Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Gesellsch. , 18 : 88 – 88 . and (footnote 20), vol. 2, 166. The original German of the second passage quoted is: ‘Aus diesen Zahlen habe ich dann das Spaltungsgesetze zuerst abgeleitet, indem ich damals die Arbeit MENDEL's noch nicht kannte’. I am aware of three later statements by de Vries concerning his initial discovery of the Mendelian laws. In 1917 he again referred to Papaver: ‘Alongside of these studies I tried hybridization. Opium poppies afforded a useful material and led to the rediscovery of Mendel's law’. But in a letter of 1924, de Vries pointed to an Oenothera cross begun in 1893, giving 17–26% recessives in 1895 (the same year he said he obtained an F2 generation for the Papaver cross), as the key experiment. In 1932 de Vries repeated what he had written in 1924. However, de Vries did not raise an F3 progeny for the Oenothera cross, so it could not have revealed to him the 1:2:1 ratio. H. de Vries. ‘The origin of the mutation theory’, Monist, d27 (1917), 403–410 (p. 408); and (footnote 20), vol. 2, 157. H. F. Roberts, Plant hybridization before Mendel (1929, Princeton), 323. J. Heimans (footnote 35, 1978), 473.
- De Vries in 1892 had crossed Danebrog (♀) with Papaver somnif. Mephisto (♂). In 1894 he found among 187 F2 plants, 22% recessive (Danebrog). F3 progeny from three self-fertilized F2 plants were obtained in 1895. Two of these F2 plants were Danebrog and both proved to be true breeding. The third F2 was Mephisto and its 140 F3 progeny were 76% Mephisto and 24% Danebrog. The reciprocal cross, begun the next year (1893), was de Vries' key cross. de Vries H. Die Mutationstheorie: Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Entstehung von Artem im Pflanzenreich Leipzig 1901–1903 2 166 166 2 vols.
- A repetition of this experiment gave for the F3 (1897) less satisfactory results. Of eight self-fertilized F2 dominants, five proved to be true breeding, while three produced both Mephisto and Danebrog offspring de Vries H. Die Mutationstheorie: Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Entstehung von Artem im Pflanzenreich Leipzig 1901–1903 2 168 169 2 vols.
- Heimans has accepted this explanation; the results of de Vries's Oenothera and xenia experiments in particular ‘were not as he had anticipated’ de Vries H. Sur la fécondation hybride de l'endosperme chez le maís Rev. gén. de botanique 1962 12 98 98 However, de Vries never referred to any xenia experiments that he had performed before 1898 in order to produce a second (F2) generation of hybrids. De Vries could have encountered the problem Heimans surmised, only if he had done such experiments.
- De Vries reported three F2 ratios (Linaria, Clarkia, and Amaranthus) in 1903 that had been omitted in 1900. We cannot date one of the experiments, but for the other two (involving two more species) he had F2 results by 1896 and 1897. de Vries H. Die Mutationstheorie: Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Entstehung von Artem im Pflanzenreich Leipzig 1901–1903 2 153 155 2 vols.
- van der Pas , P. 1968 . The role of Liberty Hyde Bailey and Hugo de Vries in the rediscovery of Mendelism . J. hist. biol. , 1 : 3 – 4 . H. de Vries, Species and varieties; their origin by mutation (2nd ed., 1906, Chicago), 293; Compare his (footnote 20), vol. 2, 141. Dr. F. Bouman, the Hugo de Vries Laboratory of the University of Amsterdam, has written to me (August 29, 1978): ‘The lecture plate shows a watermark of the kind which is present from the nineties, but also on plates from the first years of our century’.
- Bateson , W. 1900 . Hybridisation and cross-breeding as a method of scientific investigation . J. Roy. Hortic. Soc. , 24 : 59 – 66 . (pp. 64–65). According to Bateson's description, de Vries had performed a backcross experiment, noting the mixed progeny. I do not know of any published description by de Vries, prior to 1899, of such a backcross experiment. In 1903 de Vries described a Lychnis backcross from 1901, involving Lychnis diurna and the naturally occurring Lychnis diurna glabra (=Lychnis preslii). H. de Vries (footnote 20), vol. 2, 179.
- Bateson , W. and Saunders , E.R. 1902 . Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society. Report I 14 – 19 . London R. Olby (footnote 34), 135.
- These are recorded in de Vries H. Die Mutationstheorie: Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Entstehung von Artem im Pflanzenreich Leipzig 1901–1903 2 137 206 2 vols.
Annals of Science
Volume 36, 1979 - Issue 5