Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 87–106

William Bateson and the promise of Mendelism

  • Lindley Darden
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    “Genetics” was first used in a letter of April 18, 1905, by Bateson to Adam Sedgwick, published in William Bateson, Naturalist, ed. Beatrice, Bateson (London: Cambridge University Press, 1928), p. 93.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bateson, Mendel's Principles of Heredity — A Defense (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902), pp. 26–29.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Report to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society, Report I, Experiments Undertaken by W. Bateson and Miss E. R. Saunders, presented Tuesday, December 17, 1901 (London: Harrison & Sons), p. 126.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bateson, Mendel's Principles of Heredity — A Defense (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902), p. 20.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bateson, Mendel's Principles of Heredity — A Defense (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902), pp. 21–22.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evolution Committee Report I, p. 157. Others, including U. Yule and even the biometrician Karl Pearson, argued that the two approaches were not incompatible. For a discussion of their views see P. Froggatt and N. C. Nevin, “The ‘Law of Ancestral Heredity’ and the Mendelian-Ancestrian Controversy in England, 1889–1906,” J. Med. Gen., 8 (1971), 1–36.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E.g., William, Provine, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971); A. G. Cock, “William Bateson, Mendelism and Biometry,” J. Hist. Biol., 6 (1973), 1–36; and Frogatt and Nevin, “The Law of Ancestral Heredity.”Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    William, Coleman, “Bateson and Chromosomes: Conservative Thought in Science,” Centaurus, 15 (1970), 228–314. In many respects this is an excellent article, and it has influenced the view of Bateson presented here.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evolution Committee Report I, p. 125.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    William, Provine, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971) Bateson Papers, Baltimore, no. 15. Quoted in p. 68. A collection of Bateson papers is on microfilm at the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. The society furnishes a guide to the number system. The Bateson Papers are noted hereafter as BPB.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. E., Castle, “The Beginnings of Mendelism in America,” in Genetics in the 20th Century, ed. L. C., Dunn (New York: Macmillan, 1951), p. 60.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bateson, Materials for the Study of Variation (New York: Macmillan, 1894).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bateson, Materials for the Study of Variation (New York: Macmillan 1894). p. 66.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bateson, “Progress in the Study of Variation, II,” Science Progress, 2 (1898); reprinted in Scientific Papers of William Bateson, ed. R. C. Punnett, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928), I, 357–370.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ibid., p. 358.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Evolution Committee Report I, p. 148.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bateson, Mendel's Principles of Heredity — A Defense (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), p. 285.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fleeming, Jenkin, “The Origin of Species,” N. Brit. Rev., 46 (June 1867), 277–318; reprinted in David Hull, Darwin and His Critics: The Reception of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by the Scientific Community (Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 319–320.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bateson, “Progress in the Study of Variation, I,” Science Progress, 1 (1897); reprinted in Scientific Papers, I, 345.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ibid., p. 354.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bateson, Materials for the Study of Variation (New York: Macmillan, 1894), p. 10.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bateson, Materials for the Study of Variation (New York: Macmillan, 1894), p. 6.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bateson, “Progress II,” p. 348.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bateson, Materials for the Study of Variation (New York: Macmillan, 1894), p. 574.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bateson, “Progress I,” p. 351.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bateson, “On the Variations in Floral Symmetry of Certain Plants Having Irregular Corollas,” J. Linn. Soc. (Botany) 28 (1891); reprinted in Scientific Papers, I, 126–161.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bateson, “The Inheritance of Variation in the Corolla of Veronica Buxbaumii,” Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc., 10 (1900); reprinted in Scientific Papers, I, 374–388.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ibid., p. 375.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bateson, “Progress I,” p. 348.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bateson, “Hybridisation and Cross-Breeding as a Method of Scientific Investigation,” read July 11, 1899, printed in J. Roy. Hort. Soc., 24 (1900); reprinted in Bateson, ed., William Bateson, Naturalist, p. 161.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ibid., p. 166.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bateson, “Experiments in Plant Hybridisation,” J. Roy. Hort. Soc., 26 (1901); reprinted in Scientific Papers, II, 1.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Evolution Committee Report I, pp. 152–153.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bateson, “Experiments in Plant Hybridisation,” pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Coleman in “Bateson and Chromosomes” stresses the importance of development in Bateson's thought. See especially pp. 261–263. The term “domain” is used here in the sense of Dudley Shapere in “Scientific Theories and Their Domains,” The Structure of Scientific Theories, ed. Frederick, Suppe (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1974), pp. 518–562.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bateson, Materials for the Study of Variation (New York: Macmillan, 1894), p. 2.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bateson, Materials for the Study of Variation (New York: Macmillan, 1894), pp. 25–26.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bateson, “Heredity, Differentiation, and Other Conceptions of Karl Pearson's Paper ‘On the Principle of Homotyposis,’” Proc. of Roy. Soc., 69 (1901); reprinted in Scientific Papers, I, 404–405.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Also see discussion of this point inBateson, Mendel's Principles of Heredity — A Defense (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), p. 275.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bateson, Mendel's Principles of Heredity — A Defense (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), p. 274.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Also see discussion of this point inBateson, Mendel's Principles of Heredity — A Defense (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), p. 276.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bateson, Mendel's Principles of Heredity — A Defense (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909). pp. 2–3.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Published in Bateson, ed., William Bateson, Naturalist, p. 43. BPB 96 is an unpublished, undated manuscript entitled “Vibratory Theory of Linear and Radial Segmentation as Found in Living Bodies.” I agree with Coleman (“Bateson and chromosomes,” n. 151) that it is probably a sketch for the hypothesis to which Bateson refers in his letter. The MS. consists mainly of a list of phenomena which the hypothesis is to explain. It is not a statement of the hypothesis; Bateson mentions “vibrations” and “waves” only briefly.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bateson, Materials for the Study of Variation (New York: Macmillan, 1894), p. 75. For discussion of the vital force tradition in heredity, see R. S. Cowan, “Francis Galton's Contribution to Genetics,” J. Hist. Biol., 5 (1972), 399–403.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Coleman, “Bateson and Chromosomes,” part IV.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bateson, Problems of Genetics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1913), chaps. 2–3.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    See Dudley Shapere, “The Search for Discrete Units as Explanatory Factors in Science.” Unpublished MS. n. 71.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Coleman, “Bateson and Chromosomes,” pt. IV.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    E.g., Provine in Origins uses but never clarifies “discontinuous” and “continuous.”Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Darwin's usage has recently been discussed by David Hull in Dawin and His Critics, pp. 345–349, and in “Darwin, Blending Inheritance and Continuous Variations,” forthcoming. See also B. J. Norton, “The Biometric Defense of Darwinism.” J. Hist. Biol., 6 (1973), 283–297.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    The point is made clearly by George Gaylord, Simpson in The Major Features of Evolution (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953), p. 103. (I thank David Hull for calling this passage to my attention.)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hugode, Vries, Mutation Theory, trans. J. B. Farmer and A. D. Darbishire (Chicago: Open Court Publishing Co., 1909–1910), I. 48–49.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    For example, Ernst Mayr uses this misleading distinction in “The Recent Historiography of Genetics,” J. Hist. Biol., 6 (1973), 141–142. David Hull clarifies some of the confusion in Darwin and His Critics, pp. 345–346.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Charles, Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication (New York: Orange Judd and Co., 1868), chap. 27. See my discussion in “Reasoning in Scientific Change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the Discovery of Segregation,” Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., 7 (1976), 127–169.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Charles, Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication (New York: Orange Judd and Co., 1868), II, 479.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindley Darden
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of HistoryUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  3. 3.Committee on the History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations