Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 565–605 | Cite as

“The ‘Domestication’ of Heredity: The Familial Organization of Geneticists at Cambridge University, 1895–1910”

Article

Abstract

In the early years of Mendelism, 1900–1910, William Bateson established a productive research group consisting of women and men studying biology at Cambridge. The empirical evidence they provided through investigating the patterns of hereditary in many different species helped confirm the validity of the Mendelian laws of heredity. What has not previously been well recognized is that owing to the lack of sufficient institutional support, the group primarily relied on domestic resources to carry out their work. Members of the group formed a kind of extended family unit, centered on the Batesons’ home in Grantchester and the grounds of Newnham College. This case illustrates the continuing role that domestic environments played in supporting scientific research in the early 20th century.

Keywords

Cambridge biology domestic science Edith Rebecca Saunders history of genetics Mendelism William Bateson women in science 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

Archival Collection

  1. Cambridge University Archives, Manuscripts Room, Cambridge University Library (CUA).Google Scholar
  2. William Bateson Collection, John Innes Centre Archive, Norwich, England (JICA).Google Scholar
  3. William Bateson Collection (Family Papers), American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia (APS).Google Scholar
  4. William Bateson Correspondence, Add. 8634. Manuscripts Room, Cambridge University Library (CUL).Google Scholar

Published Sources

  1. Abir-Am Pnina, Outram Dorinda.(1987). “Introduction.” Pnina Abir-Am and Dorinda Outram (eds.), Uneasy Careers and Intimate Lives: Women in Science, 1789–1979. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alberti Samuel J.M.M. (2001). “Amateurs and Professionals in One County: Biology and Natural History in Late Victorian Yorkshire”. Journal of the History of Biology 34: 115–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ankeny Rachel A. (2000). “Marvelling at the Marvel: The Supposed Conversion of A.D. Darbishire to Mendelism”. Journal of the History of Biology 33: 315–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arber Agnes. (1939). “Miss Dorothea F.M. Pertz”. Nature 143: 590–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barlow Nora Darwin. (1913). “Preliminary Note on Heterostylism in Oxalis and Lythrum”. Journal of Genetics 3: 55Google Scholar
  6. Bateson Beatrice. (1928). William Bateson, F.R.S., Naturalist: His Essays and Addresses, Together with a Short Account of His Life. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Bateson Patrick. (2002). “William Bateson: A Biologist Ahead of his Time”. Journal of Genetics 81: 49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateson William. (1894; 1992). Materials for the Study of Variation Treated with Especial Regard to Discontinuity in the Origin of Species. RPT. Foreword by Peter J. Bowler. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  9. Bateson William. (1899). “Hybridisation and Cross-Breeding as a Method of Scientific Investigation”. Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society 24: 59–66Google Scholar
  10. Bateson, William 1902a. “Lepidoptera.” William Bateson and Edith Rebecca Saunders (eds.), In Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society, Vol. 1, London: Harrison.Google Scholar
  11. Bateson William (1902b). Mendel’s Principles of Heredity, a Defense. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Bateson William and Bateson Anna. (1891). “On the Variations in Floral Symmetry of Certain Plants Having Irregular Corollas”. Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany) 28: 386–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bateson William and Pertz D.F.M. (1898–1900). “Notes on the Inheritance of Variation in the Corolla of Veronica Buxbaumii”. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 10: 78–83Google Scholar
  14. Bateson, William and Killby, Hilda Blanche. 1905. “Peas (Pisum sativum).” W. Bateson, E. R. Saunders, and R.C. Punnett (eds.), Reports to the Evolution Committee. Report 2 London: Royal Society, pp. 55–80Google Scholar
  15. (1902). Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society. Vol. 1–5. Harrison, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Bateson William (1906). “Further Experiments on Inheritance in Sweet Peas and Stocks. Preliminary Account”. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 77: 236–238Google Scholar
  17. Bowler Peter J.(1992). “Foreword.” RPT. (ed.), Bateson, William, Materials for the Study of Variation Treated with Especial Regard to Discontinuity in the Origin of Species. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore MD, pp. xvii–xxviiGoogle Scholar
  18. Box Joan Fisher (1978). R. A. Fisher: The Life of a Scientist. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Browne Janet. (1995). Voyaging. Vol. 1 of Charles Darwin. Alfred A. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Browne Janet (2002). The Power of Place. Vol. 2 of Charles Darwin. Jonathan Cape, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Browne Janet (2004). “Dorothea Frances Mathilda Pertz.” New Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Carroll Victoria (2004). “The Natural History of Visiting: Responses to Charles Waterton and Walton Hall”. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences 34: 31–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chadarevian Soraya (1996). “Laboratory Science versus Country-House Experiment: The Controversy Between Julius Sachs and Charles Darwin”. British Journal for the History of Science 29: 17–41Google Scholar
  24. Clough, B.A. 1928. “Anna Bateson.” Newnham College Roll Letter pp. 78–81.Google Scholar
  25. Cock Alan. (1973). “William Bateson, Mendelism and Biometry”. Journal of the History of Biology 6: 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cock Alan (1979). “Anna Bateson of Bashley: Britain’s First Professional Woman Gardener”. Hampshire May: 59–62Google Scholar
  27. Coleman, William. 1970. “William Bateson.” Charles Coulston Gillispie (ed.), Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Charles Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  28. Creese Mary R.S. (1998). Ladies in the Laboratory? American and British Women in Science, 1800–1900: A Survey of Their Contributions to Research. Scarecrow, Lanham, MD and LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. (1992). The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Desmond Adrian and Moore James. (1991). Darwin. Michael Joseph, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Desmond Adrian and Moore James (2001). “Redefining the X Axis: ‘Professionals,’ ‘Amateurs’ and the Making of Mid-Victorian Biology – a Progress Report”. Journal of the History of Biology 34: 3–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [Durham, Beatrice]. September 1895. “At a Conversazione.” The English Illustrated Magazine. London.Google Scholar
  33. Durham, Florence M. 1908. “A Preliminary Account of the Inheritance of Coat-Colour in Mice.” W. Bateson, E.R. Saunders, and R.C. Punnett (eds.), Reports to the Evolution Committee, Report 4. London: Royal Society of London, pp. 41–53.Google Scholar
  34. Durham Florence M. (1910). “Further Experiments on the Inheritance of Coat Colour in Mice”. Journal of Genetics 1: 159–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Durham, Florence M.and Marryat, Dorothea. 1908. “Note on the Inheritance of Sex in Canaries.” W. Bateson, E.R. Saunders and R. C. Punnett (eds.), Reports to the Evolution Committee, Report 5. London: Royal Society, pp. 57–60.Google Scholar
  36. Durham Florence M and Pellew Caroline. (1915). “The Genetic Behaviour of the Hybrid Primula Kewensis and its Allies”. Journal of Genetics 5: 159–182Google Scholar
  37. Durham Florence M, Woods H.M.(1932). “Alcohol and Inheritance: An Experimental Study.” Special Report Series, Medical Research Council 168.Google Scholar
  38. Falk Raphael. (1995). “The Struggle of Genetics for Independence”. Journal of the History of Biology 28: 219–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Flanders Judith. (2003). Inside the Victorian Home: A Portrait of Domestic Life in Victorian England. W.W. Norton, New York and LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Froggatt P. and Nevin N.C. (1971). “The ‘Law of Ancestral Heredity’ and the Mendelian and Ancestrian Controversy in England, 1889–1906,”. Journal of Medical Genetics 8: 1–36Google Scholar
  41. Gates Barbara T. (1998). Kindred Nature: Victorian and Edwardian Women Embrace the Living World. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  42. Geison Gerald. (1978). Michael Foster and the Cambridge School of Physiology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  43. Girton College Register, 1869–1946. 1948. Cambridge: Girton College.Google Scholar
  44. Gooday Graeme. (1991). “‘Nature’ in the Laboratory: Domestication and Discipline with the Microscope in Victorian Life Science”. British Journal for the History of Science 24: 307–41Google Scholar
  45. Haldane J.B.S., Sprunt A.D. and Haldane Naomi M. (1915). “Reduplication in Mice (Preliminary Communication)”. Journal of Genetics 5: 133–35Google Scholar
  46. Hall Brian K.(2004). “Francis Maitland Balfour,” in The Dictionary of Nineteenth-Century British Scientists. Bernard Lightman (ed.) Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum, Vol. 1, pp. 97–100.Google Scholar
  47. Harvey, Joy. 2002. “Circling Around Darwin: Darwin’s Science as a Family Enterprise,” History of Science Society meeting, Milwaukee.Google Scholar
  48. Harwood Jonathan. (1993). Styles of Scientific Thought: The German Genetics Community, 1900–1933. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  49. Hauke, Richard. 1996. “Vignettes from the History of Plant Morphology,” Available at http://members.aol.com/cefield/hauke/arber.html.Google Scholar
  50. Hutchinson G. Evelyn. (1979). The Kindly Fruits of the Earth: Recollections of an Embryo Biologist. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  51. Killby Hilda, Bateson William.(1905). “Peas (Pisum sativum).” W. Bateson, E.R. Saunders, and R.C. Punnett (eds.), Reports to the Evolution Committee. Report 2. London: Royal Society, pp. 55–80.Google Scholar
  52. Killby, Hilda and Saunders, Edith. R. 1908. “Stocks.” W. Bateson, E.R. Saunders, and R.C. Punnett (eds.), Reports to the Evolution Committee. Report 4. London: Royal Society, pp. 35–40.Google Scholar
  53. Kimmelman, Barbara. 1987. “A Progressive Era Discipline: Genetics at American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, 1900–1920.” Ph.D. Dissertation University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  54. Kingsland Sharon E. (1991). “The Battling Botanist: Daniel Trembly MacDougal, Mutation Theory and the Rise of Experimental Evolutionary Biology in America, 1900–1912”. Isis 82: 479–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kohler Robert E.(1982). From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry: The Making of a Biomedical Discipline. Cambridge University Press, New York and CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Kohler Robert E. (1991). “The Ph.D. Machine: Building on the Collegiate Base”. Isis 81: 638–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kohler Robert E. (1994). Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  58. Kohler Robert E. (2002). Landscapes and Labscapes: Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  59. Kuklick, Henrika A. and Kohler, Robert E. (eds.). 1996. “Science in the Field.” Osiris 2d ser. 11.Google Scholar
  60. Lewis, D. 1969. “The Genetical Society – The First Fifty Years,” John Jinks (ed.), Fifty Years of Genetics. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the 160th Meeting of the Genetical Society on the 50th Anniversary of its Founding. Edinburgh: Olives and Boyd.Google Scholar
  61. Lipset David. (1980). Gregory Bateson: The Legacy of a Scientist. Prentice-Hall, Englewood, CliffsGoogle Scholar
  62. Lock Robert Heath. (1906). Recent Progress in the Study of Variation, Heredity and Evolution. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  63. Magnello M. Eileen. (1998). “Karl Pearson’s Mathematization of Inheritance: From Ancestral Heredity to Mendelian Genetics (1895–1909)”. Annals of Science 55: 35–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Magnello, M. Eileen. 1999. “The Non-Correlation of Biometrics and Eugenics: Rival Forms of Laboratory Work in Karl Pearson’s Career at University College London, Parts 1 and 2.” History of Science 37: 79–106, 123–50.Google Scholar
  65. Marie Jennifer. (2004a). “The Situation in Genetics II: Dunn’s 1927 European Tour”. Mendel Newsletter n.s. 13: 2–8Google Scholar
  66. Marie Jennifer. (2004b). The Importance of Place: A History of Genetics in 1930s Britain. University College London, PhD ThesisGoogle Scholar
  67. Marryat, Dorothea. 1908. “Hybridisation Experiments with Mirabilis jalapa.” W. Bateson, E.R. Saunders, and R.C. Punnett (eds.), Reports to the Evolution Committee. Report 5. London: Royal Society, pp. 32–50.Google Scholar
  68. Marston, C. 1928. “Anna Bateson.” Newnham College Roll Letter pp. 81–83.Google Scholar
  69. McWilliams-Tullberg Rita. (1975). Women at Cambridge. A Men’s University–Though of a Mixed Type. Victor Gollanz, LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. Mitchison, Naomi Haldane. 1967. “Beginnings.” K.R. Dronamraju (ed.), Haldane and Modern Biology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 299–305.Google Scholar
  71. Olby Robert. (1985). Origins of Mendelism. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  72. Olby Robert. (1987). “William Bateson’s Introduction of Mendelism to England: A Reassessment”. British Journal for the History of Science 20: 399–420Google Scholar
  73. Olby Robert. (1989a). “The Dimensions of Scientific Controversy: The Biometric-Mendelian Debate”. British Journal for the History of Science 22: 299–320Google Scholar
  74. Olby Robert. (1989b). “Scientists and Bureaucrats in the Establishment of the John Innes Horticultural Institution under William Bateson”. Annals of Science 46: 497–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Olby Robert.(1997). “Mendel, Mendelism, and Genetics.” MendelWeb. http://www.mendelweb.org.Google Scholar
  76. Olesko, Kathryn M. (ed.). 1989. “Science in Germany: The Intersection of Institutional and Intellectual Issues.” Osiris 2d ser. 5.Google Scholar
  77. Opitz, Donald L. 2004a. “‘Behind folding shutters in Whittingehame House’: Alice Blanche Balfour (1850–1936) and Amateur Natural History.” Archives of Natural History 31 (2).Google Scholar
  78. Opitz, Donald L. 2004b. “Aristocrats and Professionals: Country-House Science in Late-Victorian Britain,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  79. Opitz, Donald L. 2006. “‘This House is a Temple of Research’: Country House Centres for Science.” David Clifford, Elisabeth Wadge, Alex Warwick, and Martin Willis (eds.), Sidelined Sciences? Shifting Centres in Nineteenth-Century Scientific Thinking. London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
  80. Oppenheimer Jane. (1983). “T.H. Morgan as an Embryologist: The View from Bryn Mawr”. American Zoologist 23: 845–854Google Scholar
  81. Outram, Dorinda. 1996. “New Spaces in Natural History.” N. Jardine, J. A. Secord, and E.C. Spary (eds.), Cultures of Natural History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 249–265.Google Scholar
  82. Paul, Diane and Kimmelman, Barbara. 1988. “Mendel in America: Theory and Practice, 1900–1919.” R. Rainger, K. Benson, and J. Maienschein (eds.), The American Development of Biology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 281–310.Google Scholar
  83. Pauly Philip J. (1996). “How Did the Effects of Alcohol on Reproduction Become Scientifically Uninteresting?”. Journal of the History of Biology 29: 1–28Google Scholar
  84. Perrone Fernanda. (1993). “Women Academics in England, 1870–1930”. History of Universities 12: 339–367Google Scholar
  85. (1988). A Newnham Anthology. Newnham College, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  86. Provine William B. (1971). The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  87. Punnett Reginald Crundall. (1926). “William Bateson”. Edinburgh Review 244: 71–86Google Scholar
  88. Punnett Reginald Crundall. (1950). “Early Days of Genetics”. Heredity 4: 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. (1996). Creative Couples in the Sciences. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJGoogle Scholar
  90. (1997). A Devotion to Their Science: Pioneer Women of Radioactivity. Chemical Heritage Foundation, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  91. Richmond Marsha. (1997). “‘A Lab of One’s Own’: The Balfour Biological Laboratory for Women at Cambridge University, 1884–1914”. Isis 88: 422–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Richmond Marsha. (2001). “Women in the Early History of Genetics: William Bateson and the Newnham College Mendelians, 1900–1910”. Isis 92: 55–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Richmond, Marsha.Forthcoming. “Murial Wheldale Onslow and Biochemical Genetics,” Journal of the History of Biology.Google Scholar
  94. Richmond, Marsha. In preparation. “The Darwin 1909 Celebration at Cambridge: Re-Evaluating Evolution in the Light of Mendel, Mutation, and Meiosis.”Google Scholar
  95. Ridley, Mark. 1985. “Embryology and Classical Zoology in Great Britain.” J.A. Witkowski, T.J. Horder and C.C. Wylie (eds.), A History of Embryology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35–67.Google Scholar
  96. Rossiter Margaret W. (1982). Women Scientists in America. Vol. 1: Struggles and Strategies to 1940. The Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  97. Rossiter Margaret W.(1997). “Which Science? Which Women?” Sally Gregory Kohlstedt and Helen E. Longino (eds.), Women, Gender, and Science: New Directions. Osiris 12: 169–185Google Scholar
  98. Saha Margaret Somosi. (1984). Carl Correns and an Alternative Approach to Genetics: The Study of Heredity in Germany between 1880 and 1930. Michigan State University, Ph.D. dissertationGoogle Scholar
  99. Saunders Edith Rebecca. (1897). “On a Discontinuous Variation Occurring in Biscutella Laevigata”. Proceedings of the Royal Society 62: 11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Saunders, Edith Rebecca. 1902. “Experimental Studies in the Physiology of Heredity. Experiments with Plants.” W. Bateson, E.R. Saunders, and R.C. Punnett (eds.). Reports to the Evolution Committee. Report 1. London: Royal Society, pp. 13–87.Google Scholar
  101. Saunders, Edith Rebecca. 1905. “Datura, Matthiola, Salvia, and Ranunculus,” W. Bateson, E.R. Saunders, and R.C. Punnett (eds.), Reports to the Evolution Committee. Report 2. London: Royal Society, pp. 1–55.Google Scholar
  102. Saunders, Edith Rebecca. 1906. “Stocks.” W. Bateson, E.R. Saunders, and R.C. Punnett (eds.). Reports to the Evolution Committee. Report 3. London: Royal Society, pp. 38–53.Google Scholar
  103. Saunders, Edith Rebecca. 1907. “Certain Complications Arising in the Cross-Breeding of Stocks.” Royal Horticultural Society. Report of the Third International Conference 1906 on Genetics London: Spottiswoode.Google Scholar
  104. Saunders Edith Rebecca. (1910). “Studies in the Inheritance of Doubleness in Flowers. I. Petunia”. Journal of Genetics 1: 57–69Google Scholar
  105. Saunders Edith Rebecca. (1910). “Further Experiments on the Inheritance of ‘Doubleness’ and Other Characters in Stocks”. Journal of Genetics 1: 303–376Google Scholar
  106. Saunders Edith Rebecca. (1911). “On Inheritance of a Mutation in the Common Foxglove (Digitalis purpurea)”. New Phytologist 10: 54–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Saunders Edith Rebecca. (1913). “The Breeding of Double Flowers.” IVe Conférence Internationale de Génétique. Masson, ParisGoogle Scholar
  108. Saunders Edith Rebecca. (1912). “Further Contribution to the Study of the Inheritance of Hoariness in Stocks (Matthiola)”. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 85: 540–545Google Scholar
  109. Saunders Edith Rebecca. (1913). “On the Mode of Inheritance of Certain Characters in Double-Throwing Stocks. A Reply”. Zeitschrift für die induktive Abstammungs- und Vererbungslehre 10: 297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Saunders Edith Rebecca. (1915). “A Suggested Explanation of the Abnormally High Record of Doubles Quoted by Growers of Stocks (Matthiola)”. Journal of Genetics 5: 137–143Google Scholar
  111. Saunders Edith Rebecca. (1915). “On the Relation of Half-Hoariness in Matthiola to Glabrousness and Full Hoariness”. Journal of Genetics 5: 145–158Google Scholar
  112. Saunders Edith Rebecca. (1917). “Studies in the Inheritance of Doubleness in Flowers. II. Meconopsis, Althaea and Dianthus”. Journal of Genetics 6: 154–184Google Scholar
  113. Saunders Edith Rebecca. (1917). “On the Occurrence, Behaviour and Origin of a Smooth-Stemmed Form of the Common Foxglove (Digitalis purpurea)”. Journal of Genetics 7: 216–228Google Scholar
  114. Saunders Edith Rebecca. (1921). “Note on the Evolution of the Double Stock (Matthiola incana)”. Journal of Genetics 11: 69–74Google Scholar
  115. Saunders Edith Rebecca. (1924). “Further Studies on Inheritance in Matthiola incana. I. Sap Colour and Surface Character”. Journal of Genetics 14: 101–114Google Scholar
  116. Saunders Edith Rebecca. (1937). Floral Morphology: A New Outlook with Special Reference to the Interpretation of the Gynaeceum, 2 Vols. Heffer, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  117. Saunders Edith Rebecca. (1938). “Dorothea Frances Matilda Pertz”. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 151: 245–47Google Scholar
  118. Saunders, Edith Rebecca. and Killby, Hilda Blanche. 1908. “Stocks.” W. Bateson, E.R. Saunders, and R.C. Punnett (eds.), Reports to the Evolution Committee. Report 4. London: Royal Society, pp. 35–40.Google Scholar
  119. Schaffer, Simon. 1998. “Physics Laboratories and the Victorian Country House,” Crosbie Smith and Jon Agar (eds.), Making Space for Science. London: Macmillan, pp. 149–180.Google Scholar
  120. Schmid Rudolf (2001). “Agnes Arber, Née Robertson (1879–1960): Fragments of Her Life, Including Her Place in Biology and in Women’s Studies”. Annals of Botany n.s. 88: 1105–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Schulte Fischedick Kaat. (2000). “From Survey to Ecology: The Role of the British Vegetation Committee, 1904–1913,”. Journal of the History of Biology 33: 291–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Secord Anne. (1994). “Science in the Pub: Artisan Botanists in Early Nineteenth-Century Lancashire”. History of Science 32: 269–315Google Scholar
  123. Shteir, Ann B. 1989. “Botany in the Breakfast Room: Women and Early Nineteenth-Century British Plant Study.” Pnina G. Abir-Am and Dorinda Outram (eds.), Uneasy Careers and Intimate Lives: Women in Science, 1780–1979. NJ: New Brunswick and London: Rutgers University Press, pp. 19–30.Google Scholar
  124. Sidgwick Eleanor. (1897). University Education of Women. Macmillan and Bowes, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  125. Sollas, Igerna. 1909. “Inheritance of Colour and of Supernumerary Mammae in Guinea-Pigs, with a Note on the Occurrence of a Dwarf Form.” W. Bateson, E.R. Saunders, and R.C. Punnett (eds.), Reports to the Evolution Committee. Report 5. London: Royal Society of London, pp. 51–79.Google Scholar
  126. Sollas Igerna. (1913). “Note on the Offspring of a Dwarf Bearing Strain of Guinea Pigs”. Journal of Genetics 3: 201–204Google Scholar
  127. Stamhuis, Ida H. and Offereins, Marianne I.C. 1997: “Twee vrouwelijke natuurkundigen en hun promotor in het interbellum: Lili Bleeker, Truus Eymers en Leonard Ornstein” [Two female physicists and their supervisor in the interbellum period: Lili Bleeker, Truus Eymers and Leonard Ornstein], Gewina 20, nr. 4: 88–100.Google Scholar
  128. Stamhuis, Ida H. Richmond, Marsha L. and Aronova, Elena. In preparation. Women in the Early History of Genetics. Studies in the History of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 13.Google Scholar
  129. Stott Rebecca. (2003). Darwin and the Barnacle. Faber, LondonGoogle Scholar
  130. Štrbáňová, Soňa, Stamhuis, Ida, and Mojsejová, Kateřna (eds.). 2004. Women Scholars and Institutions. Proceedings of the International Conference, Prague, June 8–11, 2003. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  131. Tabery James G. (2004). “The ‘Evolutionary Synthesis’ of George Udny Yule,”. Journal of the History of Biology 37: 73–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Weatherall Mark and Kamminga Harmke. (1992). Dynamic Science: Biochemistry in Cambridge, 1898–1949. Cambridge Wellcome Unit Publications, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  133. Wheldale Muriel. (1907). “The Inheritance of Flower Colour in Antirrhinum majus”. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 79: 288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Wheldale Muriel. (1909a). “On the Nature of Anthocyanin”. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 15: 137–168Google Scholar
  135. Wheldale Muriel. (1909b). “The Colours and Pigments of Flowers, with Special Reference to Genetics”. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 81: 44–60Google Scholar
  136. Wheldale, Muriel. 1909c. “Further Observations upon the Inheritance of Flower-Colour in Antirrhinum majus.” W. Bateson, E.R. Saunders, and R.C. Punnett (eds.), Reports to the Evolution Committee, Report 5. London: Royal Society of London, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  137. Wheldale, Muriel. 1909d. “Note on the Physiological Interpretation of the Mendelian Factors for Colour in Plants.” W. Bateson, E.R. Saunders, and R.C. Punnett (eds.), Reports to the Evolution Committee, Report 5. London: Royal Society of London, pp. 26–50.Google Scholar
  138. Wheldale Muriel (1910). “On the Formation of Anthocyanin”. Journal of Genetics 1: 133–158Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Interdisciplinary Studies College of Urban, Labor and Metropolitan AffairsWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations