- Darwin , C. 1868 . The variation of animals and plants under domestication Vol. 2 , 91 – 91 . N.Y. 2 vols.
- Stern , C. and Sherwood , E.R. 1966 . The origin of genetics x – x . San Francisco and London
- De Vries , H. 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde . Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft , 18 : 83 – 90 . translated by Evelyn Stern in Stern and Sherwood (footnote 3), 110, note 6. This paper was received for publication on 14 March 1900; it will be referred to as the ‘German paper’. De Vries published three further papers in 1900: (i) ‘Sur la loi de disjonction des hybrides. Note de M. Hugo de Vries, présentée par M. Gaston Bonnier’, Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, 130 (1900), 845–847 (read 26 March 1900, and appearing in publication before the ‘German version’ listed above). This will be referred to as the ‘French paper’ or ‘French version’. (ii) ‘Sur les unités des caractères spécifiques et leur application a l'étude des hybrides’, Revue générale de botanique, 12 (1900), 257–271 (dated 19 March 1900). De Vries mentions Mendel only on the last page of this paper. Sturtevant translates the sentence which refers to Mendel's paper as ‘This memoir, very beautiful for its time, has been known to me and then forgotten’ (A. H. Sturtevant, A history of genetics (1965, N.Y.), 27): but as van der Pas and Weinstein have shown, this is incorrect (see P. van der Pas. ‘Hugo de Vries and Gregor Mendel’, Folia Mendeliana, 11 (1976), 3–16 (p. 8); and A. Weinstein, ‘How unknown was Mendel's paper?’, J. hist. biol., 10 (1977). 341–364 (p. 362). (iii) ‘Über erbungleiche Kreuzungen (Vorläufige Mittheilung)’, Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft, 18 (1900), 435–443 (received for publication 21 November 1900).
- De Vries makes the same claim of independent discovery in the German paper of 1900 (see De Vries H. Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft 1900 18 88 88 and in Die Mutationstheorie; Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Entstehung von Arten im Pflanzenreich (2 vols., 1901–1903, Leipzig), vol. 2, p. 166.
- Stern and Sherwood . 1966 . The origin of genetics 134 – 134 . San Francisco and London note 1
- Bailey , L.H. 1906 . Plant breeding, being six lectures upon the amelioration of domestic plants , 4th ed. 155 – 156 . New York
- De Vries is referring to his book De Vries H. Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft 1900 18 88 88
- Roberts , H.F. 1965 . Plant hybridization before Mendel 323 – 323 . London (facsimilie of 1929 edition)
- Stomps , Th.J. 1954 . On the rediscovery of Mendel's work by Hugo de Vries . J. hered. , 45 : 293 – 294 . (p. 293)
- Stomps , Th.J. 1954 . On the rediscovery of Mendel's work by Hugo de Vries . J. hered. , 45 : 294 – 294 . Beijerinck, who made considerable contributions to the study of galls, bacteria and viruses, is recorded as having made the statement: ‘k Had in mijn eentje Mendel weer ontdekt: 5 jaar vóór Hugo de Vries’ (‘Interview with Beijerinck published by Mrs. W. van Itallie-van Embden’, in Verzamelde Geschriften Van M. W. Beijerinck benevens eene beschrijving van zijn leven en beschouwingen over zijn werk (6 vols., eds. G. van Iterson Jr., L. E. den Dooren de Jong en A. J. Kluyver: Delft, 1940), vol. 6, 191). However, in another place he is reported to have said, ‘If I had remained at Wageningen, … I should also have rediscovered the Mendelian laws, …’ (ibid., 30). It is conceivable, therefore, that Beijerinck read Mendel's paper about 1895 but did not appreciate its significance, so that some doubts might be expressed regarding Zirkle's statement of 1968 that ‘It would have been very difficult for any biologist to have read Mendel's paper in the 1890's and not to have recognized its importance immediately’ (C. Zirkle, ‘The role of Liberty Hyde Bailey and Hugo de Vries in the rediscovery of Mendelism’, J. hist. biol., 2, (1968), 205–218 (p. 211)).
- Olby , R.C. 1967 . Origins of Mendelism 125 – 125 . N.Y.
- Olby , R.C. 1967 . Origins of Mendelism 125 – 125 . N.Y.
- Olby , R.C. 1967 . Origins of Mendelism 127 – 127 . N.Y.
- Olby , R.C. 1967 . Origins of Mendelism 128 – 128 . N.Y.
- Olby , R.C. 1967 . Origins of Mendelism 129 – 129 . N.Y.
- Allen , G.E. 1975 . Life sciences in the twentieth century 48 – 48 . N.Y.
- Darden , L. 1976 . Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the discovery of segregation . Stud. hist. phil. sci. , 7 : 127 – 169 . (p. 163).
- Darden , L. 1976 . Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the discovery of segregation . Stud. hist. phil. sci. , 7 : 159 – 159 .
- Van der Pas . 1976 . Hugo de Vries and Gregor Mendel . Folia Mendeliana , 11 : 4 – 4 .
- Kottler , M. 1979 . Hugo de Vries and the rediscovery of Mendel's laws . Annals of science , 36 : 517 – 538 . (p. 517)
- Kottler , M. 1979 . Hugo de Vries and the rediscovery of Mendel's laws . Annals of science , 36 : 533 – 533 .
- It is noteworthy that de Vries refers to Focke's book Focke W.O. Die Pflanzen-Mischlinge ein Beitrag zur Biologie der Gewächse Berlin 1881 several times in Intracellular pangenesis. De Vries crossed Phaseolus multiflorous and Phaseolus vulgaris in 1886. Mendel records results for the crosses between these species which are indexed and are referred to by Focke on page 111 of his book. Since de Vries refers to similar results from other sources recorded by Focke, it would be surprising if he did not also check whether other observers had made the same cross as himself. Later de Vries refers to Focke's discussion of xenia (pp. 510–518). This occurs less than twenty pages after Focke notes that hybrid breeders including Mendel have not attached new names to their productions (p. 492). De Vries himself notes, in contrast. earlier in his book, that ‘the frequent specific name, hybridus, is evidence of the constant and defined nature of first generation hybrids’ (H. de Vries, Intracellular pangenesis (1889) (translated by C. S. Gager: 1910, Chicago), 28; see also pp. 180–181). It appears at least probable that de Vries came across references to Mendel, but it seems that he did not regard them as of sufficient significance to warrant looking up Mendel's original paper at this stage. In his long French paper of 1900 (footnote 4 (ii)) de Vries refers to p. 474 of Focke's book.
- Bailey , L.H. 1892 . Cross-breeding and hybridization: the philosophy of the crossing of plants, considered with reference to their improvement under cultivation with a brief bibliography of the subject New York Bailey cites ‘1865. Mendel, G. Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden. Brünn Verdandl. iv. 3–47’ and ‘1869. Mendel, G. Ueber einige aus Künstlicher Befruchtung Gewonnen Hieracium-Bastarde. Brünn Verhandl. viii. 26–31’ (p. 32, 34).
- De Vries . 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde . Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft , 18 : 87 – 87 . Stern and Sherwood, (footnote 3), 113.
- See Roberts H.F. Plant hybridization before Mendel London 1965 323 323 (facsimilie of 1929 edition). note 1, Olby (footnote 12), 128; and Bailey (footnote 7), 156.
- De Vries . 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde . Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft , 18 : 88 – 88 . Stern and Sherwood (footnote 3), 115. Backcrosses of this nature were in no sense novel, they had been undertaken by many hybridists before, including Koelreuter who first undertook a series of crossing experiments (see Roberts (footnote 9), 55).
- De Vries . 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde . Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft , 18 : 88 – 88 . Stern and Sherwood (footnote 3), 115.
- Van der Pas . 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde . Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft , 18 : 4 – 4 . As already noted, Darwin had collected numerical data on the different kinds produced by a second cross by 1868. Moreover, Naudin recorded in 1858 that out of 25 plants produced from crossing 2 flowers of Petunia nyctaginiflora with P. violacea ‘seven or eight plants’ displayed ‘the yellowish pollen of P. nyctaginiflora; in all the rest, it was grey or grey-blue’ (C. Naudin, ‘Observations concernant quelques plantes hybrides qui ont été cultivées au muséum’, Annales des sciences naturelles botanique et biologie végétale, 9 (1858), 257–278 (p. 267). Furthermore, Dzierzon wrote in 1854 that a hybrid queen bee ‘produces half Italian and half German drones, but strangely enough, not according to the type but according to number, as if it were difficult for nature to fuse both species into a middle race’ (J. Dzierzon, ‘Die Drohnen’, Der Bienenfreund aus Schlesien, No. 8 (Brieg, 1854), 63–64; translated in C. Zirkle, ‘Gregor Mendel and his precursors’, Isis, 42 (1951). 97–140 (p. 102)). If de Vries's 1896 or 1897 percentages show that he discovered the law of segregation, then surely the same could be said of Dzierzon, Naudin and perhaps even Darwin. Kottler suggests that this plate was actually made later, but the evidence is indecisive ((footnote 21), 531–532).
- de Vries , H. 1897 . Monstruosités héréditaires . Bot. Jaarb. , 9 : 80 – 93 . (p. 87). The Dutch version of this paper is found on pp. 62–79.
- de Vries , H. 1897 . Monstruosités héréditaires . Bot. Jaarb. , 9 : 89 – 89 .
- Kottler . 1979 . Hugo de Vries and the rediscovery of Mendel's laws . Annals of science , 36 : 519 – 519 .
- One of Hugo de Vries's 1898 papers (‘Unity in variability’, The University chronicle Berkeley 1898 1 329 346 was first read on 8 January 1898 but the English translation revised by de Vries was read 28 September 1898.
- 1898 . The University chronicle Vol. 1 , 340 – 340 . Berkeley De Vries also states that ‘The resemblances in certain characters between children and their parents depend, it is said, on heredity; the differences on variability’ (p. 336) and represents Quetelet as having discovered the law of variability and Galton that of heredity. But he asserts that these relate to the phenomena and that the search for their causes ‘is something quite different’ (p. 338). Plant experiments are, he claims, the best means by which these can be investigated but although he stresses the need to grow large numbers, he speaks of selecting from these ‘30 or 40 best ones for the next year’ (p. 339). He does not appear to recognize the importance of knowing the ancestry of each individual as Mendel did: he selects within populations.
- Conway Zirkle expresses the view that Mendel's work was more unified and complete ‘than that of the three biologists who discovered him…’ Van der Pas Hugo de Vries and Gregor Mendel Folia Mendeliana 1976 11 97 97 see also p. 98). With Mendel's work at hand a botanist with good facilities should have been able to conduct dihybrid and trihybrid experiments at the same time as he crossed those differing in single traits so that four years rather than eight should have been ample time in which to confirm Mendel's results. Moreover, it is interesting the de Vries cites no results from crosses of peas. Surely he would have tried these had he known of Mendel's work earlier.
- De Vries . 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde . Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft , 18 : 89 – 89 . reproduced in Stern and Sherwood (footnote 3), 117. He states that ‘In similar fashion calculations and experiments are to be applied to tri-to-polyhybrids’ (my italics).
- De Vries , H. 1900 . Hybridizing of monstrosities . Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society , 24 : 69 – 75 . (p. 69). Read 11 July 1899.
- De Vries , H. 1900 . Hybridizing of monstrosities . Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society , 24 : 69 – 75 .
- De Vries , H. 1900 . Hybridizing of monstrosities . Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society , 24 : 74 – 74 . As Zirkle has noted de Vries also gives the figures for this result. These are 99 and 54, and are closer to 2 : 1 than 3 : 1. In 1897 de Vries recorded this as a 2/3 result, ((footnote 30), 89) but in 1899 he records it as a 3/4 fraction, ((footnote 37), 74, 75). This requires explanation if it were not a knowledge of Mendel's theory which effected this change. Most of the plantings carried out by de Vries provided him with only a hundred or two offspring, but in 1899 he counted F2 corn seeds, obtaining over 4000 seeds from 13 cobs in one experiment. His results were 3161: 1082, giving 25·2% recessives. It may have been the size of this sample and its close approximation to 3/4 which led de Vries to recognize that the F2 fractions could be regarded as approximating to 3/4 rather than 2/3 or 4/5.
- De Vries . 1900 . Hybridizing of monstrosities . Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society , 24 : 75 – 75 .
- De Vries . 1900 . Hybridizing of monstrosities . Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society , 24 : 74 – 74 . 75
- Kottler . 1979 . Hugo de Vries and the rediscovery of Mendel's laws . Annals of science , 36 : 522 – 522 . The fact that 6% were white over successive generations suggests that two colour factors were involved and that the 6% represents the 1/16 of the 9:3:3:1 ratio. De Vries mentions colouration as being ‘purple, partly dark red’ and white ((footnote 37), 74). He selected the ‘dark-red’ varieties.
- Sturtevant . 1900 . Sur les unités des caractères spécifiques et leur application a l'étude des hybrides . Revue générale de botanique , 12 : 28 – 28 . De Vries undoubtedly saw this paper of Correns and almost certainly did so between 25 January 1900, when Correns's paper was published (Sturtevant (footnote 4 (ii)), 28), and the time when he corrected the galley proofs for his own paper entitled ‘Sur la fécondation hybride de l'Endosperme Chez le Mais,’ Revue générale de botanique, 12 (1900), 129–137 (published on 15 April 1900). In the first footnote of this paper de Vries writes: ‘Une note préliminaire: Sur la fécondation hybride de l'albumen, a été présentée par M. le Prof. Bonnier, à l'Académie des Sciences (Voyez C. R. du 4 dec. 1899.) Quelques semaines après, M. C. Correns, de Tubingue, a publié le même résultant dans les Berichte der. d. botan. Gesellsch. Bd. XVII, Heft 10. Séance du 29 déc. 1899, p. 410’. Zirkle has already noted that ‘We can now say that it can be established. De Vries knew of this paper of Correns and listed it in a footnote on the first page …’ ((footnote 11), 215). However, Zirkle considers this to be proof that ‘de Vries knew of Mendel when he submitted this paper’ (p. 214). However, if de Vries submitted this paper before 4 December 1899, as seems likely since that was the date on which a shortened version was read to the Académie des sciences, this footnote must have been added later and presumably after 25 January 1900, the date on which the issue containing Correns's ‘double fertilization’ paper was published.
- Correns , C. 1899 . Untersuchungen über die Xenien bei Zea Mays . Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft , 17 : 410 – 417 . (p. 417)
- Van der Pas . 1976 . Hugo de Vries and Gregor Mendel . Folia Mendeliana , 11 : 3 – 16 . 6 notes that the paper was written at about the time of the death of his father (4 March 1900) and that hence ‘The motivation to write this paper at this time must have been very strong’. Van der Pas does not, however, offer any explanation for this strong motivation. De Vries could do nothing about what Mendel had done but he could ensure that he, rather than Correns, reintroduced these ideas.
- De Vries . 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde . Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft , 18 : 87 – 87 . Roberts (footnote 9), 329 has added the genus initials in the second column.
- De Vries . 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde . Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft , 18 : 85 – 85 .
- De Vries . 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde . Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft , 18 : 87 – 87 .
- De Vries . 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde . Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft , 18 : 846 – 846 .
- Sturtevant . 1965 . A history of genetics 27 – 27 . N.Y.
- Van der Pas . 1976 . Hugo de Vries and Gregor Mendel . Folia Mendeliana , 11 : 6 – 6 .
- Van der Pas . 1976 . Hugo de Vries and Gregor Mendel . Folia Mendeliana , 11 : 7 – 7 .
- 1900 . Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft , 18 : 259 – 259 .
- This view conflicts with those expressed by Olby and Roberts. Olby suggests that de Vries received Mendel's paper from Beijerinck after completing the French version but before he had finished the German one Olby R.C. Origins of Mendelism N.Y. 1967 127 127 Roberts suggests that the French paper ‘states quite briefly results similar to those of Mendel, but obtained anterior to the author's re-discovery of the Mendel paper’ ((footnote 9), 323). Van der Pas, in contrast, considers that ‘Hugo de Vries had already given Mendel his due in the earlier German Berichte paper’ ((footnote 4 (ii), 7). This may be so, but in view of the additional statement made by van der Pas ‘To have a paper read at a session of the French Académie insured speedy publication and was therefore very desirable’ (ibid.), the question arises as to why de Vries did not send his first paper to (or write his first paper for) the fastest journal. It is probable that, as Sturtevant suggests, both French papers were submitted together, and since the Revue paper is the longer, it may have taken longer to complete. However, it is also possible that de Vries knew that his first publication was unlikely to contain a reference to Mendel but thought that he had ‘covered himself’ by submitting the German paper first.
- Mendel , G. 1966 . “ Experiments on plant hybrids ” . In The origin of genetics Edited by: Stern and Sherwood . 10 – 10 . San Francisco and London de Vries (footnote 4), 85, in Stern and Sherwood, 113; and de Vries (footnote 4 (i)), 845, in Roberts (footnote 9), 324. Correns wrote in April of the same year: ‘One can call the one the dominating and the other the recessive, as Mendel did in his time and, through a remarkable accident, De Vries does also now’ (C. Correns, ‘G. Mendels Regel über das Verhalten der Nachkommenschaft der Rassenbastarde’, Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft, 18 (1900), 158–167, in Roberts (footnote 9), 340). Moreover, Tschermak wrote to Roberts in 1925 stating that ‘I received from Hugo De Vries … the article “Sur la loi de disjonction des hybrides” … in which De Vries … says: “In the hybrid the simple differential character of one of the parents is then visible or dominant while the antagonistic character is in the latent or recessive state” … it was now quite clear to me that De Vries must also know of the work of Mendel, although it was not cited in this paper’ (see Roberts (footnote 9), 346).
- De Vries . 1889 . Intracellular pangenesis 22 – 23 . Chicago translated by C. S. Gager: 1910 It is interesting to note also that in Die Mutationstheorie (footnote 5), published in German by 1903 and in English in 1909, de Vries presents a theory which is more qualitative than might be expected. Van der Pas (footnote 4 (ii), 9) notes that some chapters, which were more technical and which therefore included those dealing with Mendel's theory, were omitted in the English translation. Even so, in the remaining chapters de Vries uses his old terminology, referring to latent characters rather than recessive ones and he thinks that Mendelian units may be ‘of a compound nature’ (1909 version, 646). He still thinks that ‘Fluctuating variability is due to variation in the number of equivalent pangenes; …’ (p. 646), so that he does not really apply Mendel's theory to all his data. It is only applied where he has collected quantitative data and even here de Vries points to exceptions (see ‘On twin hybrids’, Botanical gazette, 44 (1907), 401–407). Moreover, unlike Bateson, Cuénot, Correns and Tschermak, de Vries did not pursue investigation of the behaviour of hereditarv units in phenomena which obey Mendel's laws, as van der Pas and Darden (Daden (footnote 18), 162) note.
- De Vries . 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde . Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft , 18 : 86 – 86 . writes: ‘25 pCt. d + 50 pCt. dr + 25 pCt. r’. In ‘Sur la loi de disjonction des hybrides’ (footnote 4 (i)) 847, he writes: ‘25 pour 100 de D, 50 pour 100 de DR et 25 pour 100 de R’.
- Olby . 1967 . Origins of Mendelism 144 – 144 . N.Y. note 39
- Kottler . 1979 . Hugo de Vries and the rediscovery of Mendel's laws . Annals of science , 36 : 525 – 525 .
- De Vries . 1900 . Sur la fécondation hybride de l'Endosperme Chez le Mais . Revue générale de botanique , 12 : 129 – 137 .
- This change in stance is perhaps evidenced by comparing the statement that ‘leur mélange ne paraissait être réglé que par les lois de la probabilité de Vries Hybridizing of monstrosities Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society 1900 24 136 136 with his March statement that ‘In the formation of pollen and ovules the two antagonistic characteristics separate, following for the most part simple laws of probability’ ((footnote 4), 84: (footnote 3), 110). He also has a footnote stating that ‘Die Combinationen finden nach der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung statt’ (ibid., 86).
- See Van der Pas Hugo de Vries and Gregor Mendel Folia Mendeliana 1976 11 3 16
- Darden . 1976 . Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the discovery of segregation . Stud. hist. phil. sci. , 7 : 157 – 157 .
- De Vries . 1889 . Intracellular pangenesis 19 – 20 . Chicago translated by C. S. Gager: 1910 see also pp. 33–34.
- Spencer wrote that ‘in any mixed aggregate of units, segregation must inevitably go on. Incident forces will tend ever to cause separation of the two orders of units from each other’ Spencer H. The principles of biology New York 1897 1 267 267 see also p. 268). De Vries comments on Spencer's theory in Intracellular pangenesis (footnote 23), 51–53.
- Weismann's theory is discussed by de Vries in Intracellular pangenesis Chicago 1889 53 57 translated by C. S. Gager: 1910
- De Vries uses this term in Intracellular pangenesis on one occasion only, its use being restricted to a specific example and the idea is not applied, in any sense, universally. He writes: ‘Consideration of numerous examples gives the impression that the single whorl-forms are antagonistic to each other, and that each tries to exclude the other’ De Vries Intracellular pangenesis Chicago 1889 26 26 translated by C. S. Gager: 1910 Olby also considers that ‘De Vries failed to arrive at the idea of two mutually exclusive pangenes per character, and its phenotypic equivalent, the character pair. So did Weismann … How near and yet how far’ (R. Olby, ‘The influence of physiology on hereditary theories in the nineteenth century’, Folia Mendeliana, 6, (1971), 99–103 (p. 101)).
- See De Vries Sur la fécondation hybride de l'Endosperme Chez le Mais Revue générale de botanique 1900 12 129 137 The shorter version read in December 1899 is H. de Vries, ‘Sur la fécondation hybride de l'albumen’, Comptes rendus Acad. Sci., 129 (1899), 973–975.
- De Vries . 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde . Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft , 18 : 845 – 845 . Roberts (footnote 9), 324.
- It is interesting that Tschermak attempted to give no explanation of his 3:1 ratios in 1900. He stated that ‘The rules of inheritance, quite intentionally, I expressed at first purely descriptively or phenomenologically, in order not at once to anchor the newly-beginning experimental phase of the doctrine of heredity … to definite theoretical terms’ (quoted from Roberts Plant hybridization before Mendel London 1965 345 345 (facsimilie of 1929 edition). note 1 The equating of hereditary units with actual characters by Bateson, Techermak and sometimes by de Vries as well, may have also been partly due to the influence of positivism.
- Knight , T.A. 1799 . An account of some experiments on the fecundation of vegetables in a letter from Thomas Andrew Knight, Esq. to the Right Hon. Sir Joseph Banks, K.B.P.R.S., . Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London , 79 : 195 – 204 . (p. 196)
- Vorzimmer , P. 1970 . Charles Darwin: the years of controversy. The origin of species and its critics 1859–1882 22 – 22 . Philadelphia
- Vorzimmer , P. 1970 . Charles Darwin: the years of controversy. The origin of species and its critics 1859–1882 31 – 31 . Philadelphia note
- Dunn , L.C. 1965 . A short history of genetics. The development of some of the main lines of thought: 1864–1939 28 – 28 . N.Y.
- Olby . 1967 . Origins of Mendelism 44 – 44 . N.Y.
- Olby . 1967 . Origins of Mendelism 44 – 44 . N.Y.
- Olby . 1967 . Origins of Mendelism 45 – 45 . N.Y.
- Darden . 1976 . Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the discovery of segregation . Stud. hist. phil. sci. , 7 : 153 – 153 .
- Darden . 1976 . Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the discovery of segregation . Stud. hist. phil. sci. , 7 : 159 – 159 .
- Darden . 1976 . Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the discovery of segregation . Stud. hist. phil. sci. , 7 : 159 – 159 .
- Darden . 1976 . Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the discovery of segregation . Stud. hist. phil. sci. , 7 : 158 – 158 .
- Darden . 1976 . Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the discovery of segregation . Stud. hist. phil. sci. , 7 See de Vries (footnote 4), 84: Stern and Sherwood (footnote 3). 110.
- Darden . 1976 . Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the discovery of segregation . Stud. hist. phil. sci. , 7 : 158 – 158 .
- Olby . 1967 . Origins of Mendelism 126 – 126 . N.Y.
- Olby . 1967 . Origins of Mendelism 127 – 127 . N.Y.
- Darden . 1976 . Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the discovery of segregation . Stud. hist. phil. sci. , 7 : 159 – 160 .
- Mendel . 1966 . “ Experiments on plant hybrids ” . In The origin of genetics Edited by: Stern and Sherwood . 26 – 26 . San Francisco and London
- Mendel . 1966 . “ Experiments on plant hybrids ” . In The origin of genetics Edited by: Stern and Sherwood . 26 – 26 . San Francisco and London
- Mendel . 1966 . “ Experiments on plant hybrids ” . In The origin of genetics Edited by: Stern and Sherwood . 27 – 27 . San Francisco and London
- Mendel . 1966 . “ Experiments on plant hybrids ” . In The origin of genetics Edited by: Stern and Sherwood . 29 – 29 . San Francisco and London
- Olby . 1967 . Origins of Mendelism 129 – 129 . N.Y.
- De Vries . 1900 . Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde . Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft , 18 : 271 – 271 .
- Van der Pas . 1976 . Hugo de Vries and Gregor Mendel . Folia Mendeliana , 11 : 4 – 4 . Mendel wrote of crosses between species of Matthiola and Mirabilis and between kinds of maize: ‘Their hybrids behave exactly like those of Pisum’ (Letter to Naegeli dated 3 July 1870; see Stern and Sherwood (footnote 3), 93) so that he had in fact obtained results for other species. De Vries could not have known of these results but he should have known of the similar results recorded by Mendel for Phaseolus.
- Darden . 1976 . Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the discovery of segregation . Stud. hist. phil. sci. , 7 : 128 – 128 . Darden attacks the view of scientific change presented by Thomas Kuhn in The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed. 1971, Chicago).
- That de Vries was ‘converted’ is evident if his paper delivered to the Royal Horticultural Society in 1899 is compared with any of his 1900 papers. In ‘Hybridizing of monstrosities De Vries H. Hybridizing of monstrosities Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society 1900 24 69 75 de Vries states that ‘very little is known of the way in which such a transferring of characters takes place’ (p. 69), and that ‘how the transfer of the peculiarities is effected, we know as yet very little’ (ibid.) This contrasts strongly with the complete absence of such statements in the later papers.
- Darden . 1976 . Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the discovery of segregation . Stud. hist. phil. sci. , 7 : 128 – 128 . See T. S. Kuhn, ‘Reflections on my critics’, in Criticism and the growth of knowledge (eds. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave: 1974, London), 231–278 for a defence against the charge that he represents scientific change as an irrational process.
- Naegeli wrote to Mendel: ‘You should regard the numerical expressions as being only empirical, because they cannot be proved rational’ (quoted in Stern Sherwood The origin of genetics San Francisco and London 1966 63 63 Perhaps they could not be proved rational, but Mendel gave a rational explanation of them. As he stated he had ‘indeed entered the rational domain’ (ibid.).
- See Dijksterhuis E.J. The mechanization of the world picture N.Y. 1969 part IV, section 1. Copernicus retained several notions which dated back to Plato; namely, that the planets move in uniform circular motion and that the universe was both spherical and finite.
- See Olby Origins of Mendelism N.Y. 1967 125 125 65–66 for a discussion of Naudin's contribution.
- Galton also calculated the 1:2:1 ratio for a pair of units but he considered ‘three molecules’ as well. He did not suggest that pairs were always or even normally involved (see Olby Origins of Mendelism N.Y. 1967 72 72
- Zirkle . 1968 . The role of Liberty Hyde Bailey and Hugo de Vries in the rediscovery of Mendelism . J. hist. biol. , 2 : 211 – 211 .
Annals of Science
Volume 37, 1980 - Issue 6