Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 215–264 | Cite as

Toyama Kametaro and Vernon Kellogg: Silkworm Inheritance Experiments in Japan, Siam, and the United States, 1900–1912

Article

Abstract

Japanese agricultural scientist Toyama Kametaro’s report about the Mendelian inheritance of silkworm cocoon color in Studies on the Hybridology of Insects (1906) spurred changes in Japanese silk production and thrust Toyama and his work into a scholarly exchange with American entomologist Vernon Kellogg. Toyama’s work, based on research conducted in Japan and Siam, came under international scrutiny at a time when analyses of inheritance flourished after the “rediscovery” of Mendel’s laws of heredity in 1900. The hybrid silkworm studies in Asia attracted the attention of Kellogg, who was concerned with how experimental biology would be used to study the causes of natural selection. He challenged Toyama’s conclusions that Mendelism alone could explain the inheritance patterns of silkworm characters such as cocoon color because they had been subject to hundreds of years of artificial selection, or breeding. This examination of the intersection of Japanese sericulture and American entomology probes how practical differences in scientific interests, societal responsibilities, and silkworm materiality were negotiated throughout the processes of legitimating Mendelian genetics on opposite sides of the Pacific. The ways in which Toyama and Kellogg assigned importance to certain silkworm properties show how conflicting intellectual orientations arose in studies of the same organism. Contestation about Mendelism took place not just on a theoretical level, but the debate was fashioned through each scientist’s rationale about the categorization of silkworm breeds and races and what counted as “natural.” This further mediated the acceptability of the silkworm not as an experimental organism, but as an appropriately “natural” insect with which to demonstrate laws of inheritance. All these shed light on the challenges that came along with the use of agricultural animals to convincingly articulate new biological principles.

Keywords

sericulture silkworm inheritance Mendelism natural selection Darwinism breeding entomology silk cocoons Japan Siam Asia Bombyx mori Toyama Kametaro Vernon Kellogg naturalness artificiality passing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on a presentation delivered at the 2007 meeting of the International Society for the Historical, Philosophical and Social Studies of Biology. I would like to thank fellow session participants Barbara Kimmelman, Jonathan Harwood, the late Philip Pauly, Theodore Varno, and the session attendees for their helpful comments and questions. I am grateful to Will Provine, Bruce Lewenstein, Suman Seth, Vic Koschmann, Michael Lynch, Nicole Nelson, Rebecca Tally, Katie Proctor, and Anna Geltzer at Cornell University, and three anonymous reviewers for their critical feedback and suggestions to the manuscript. Research for this paper was made possible thanks to many individuals and institutions in Japan and Thailand, including Toru Shimada, Amornrat Promboon, Netnapa Chingkitti, Warangkana Narksen, Pornpinee Boonbundal, the late Yataro Tazima, Satoshi Takeda, Yasuko Moriwaki, the Queen Sirikit Institute of Sericulture, the Dainippon Silk Foundation, and the National Institute of Agrobiological Science.

References

Unpublished Sources

  1. Papers of the Japanese Sericulture Experts; Reports of the Ministry of Agriculture, Thailand National Archives, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
  2. Stanford University Entomological Collection: Records, 1891–1929. Stanford University Special Collections and University Archives.Google Scholar
  3. Tazima Yataro Collection. Institute of Sericulture, Dainippon Silk Foundation, Ibaraki, Japan.Google Scholar

Published Sources

  1. Allen, Garland. 1978. Thomas Hunt Morgan. Princeton:Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, Glover M. 1904. ‘The Heredity of Coat-Colour in Mice.’ Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 40(2): 61–163.Google Scholar
  3. Bartholomew, James R. 1989. The Formation of Science in Japan: Building a Research Tradition. New Haven:Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bateson, William. 1909. Mendel’s Principles of Heredity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bateson, William. and Saunders, E.R. 1902. “Report I.–Experiments Undertaken by W. Bateson, F.R.S. and Miss E. R. Saunders. Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society. London: Harrison & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Bowler, Peter. 1983. The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades Around 1900. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bowler, Peter. 1989. The Mendelian Revolution. The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society. London:Athlone.Google Scholar
  8. Burks, Ardath W. 1985. The Modernizers: Overseas Students, Foreign Employees, and Meiji Japan. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.Google Scholar
  9. California Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1890. Biennial Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the State of California, 4.Google Scholar
  10. Castle, William E. and Allen, G.M. 1903. “The Heredity of Albinism.” Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society. London.Google Scholar
  11. Coutagne, Georges. 1902. Recherches Experimentales sur l’Hérédité chez les Vers a Soie. Serie A, Théses présentées a la Faculté des Sciences de Paris.Google Scholar
  12. Creager, Angela. 2002. The Life of a Virus. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. de Bary, W Theodore, Gluck, Carol, Tiedemann, Arthur E. (eds.). 2006. Sources of Japanese Tradition: 1600 to 2000, 2nd ed. New York; Chichester:Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Endersby, Jim. 2007. A Guinea Pig’s History of Biology. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Francks, Penelope. 1984. Technology and Agricultural Development in Pre-War Japan. New Haven:Yale University.Google Scholar
  16. Gregory, R.P. 1911. “Experiment with Primula sinensis.” Journal of Genetics 1:73–132.Google Scholar
  17. Guignard, L. 1891. “Nouvelles études sur la fécondation.” Annales Des Sciences Naturelles Botanique 14.Google Scholar
  18. Harwood, Jonathan. 2006. ‘Introduction to the Special Issue on Biology and Agriculture.’ Journal of the History of Biology 39: 237–239.Google Scholar
  19. Ikeno, Seiichiro. 1906. Shokubutsu Keitōgaku. Tokyo:Shōka Bō.Google Scholar
  20. Ishikawa, Chiyomatsu. 1891. ‘Studies of Reproductive Elements. I. Spermatogenesis, Ovogenesis and Fertilization in Diaptomus.’ Journal of the College of Science, Imperial University of Japan 5: 1–34.Google Scholar
  21. Jordan, David Starr, Kellogg, V. 1907. Evolution and Animal Life; an Elementary Discussion of Facts, Processes, Laws and Theories Relating to the Life and Evolution of Animals. New York:D. Appleton and Co.Google Scholar
  22. Keeble, F., Pellew, C. 1910. ‘White Flowered Varieties of Primula sinensis.’ Journal of Genetics 1: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kellogg, Vernon, 1892. Common Injurious Insects of Kansas. Lawrence: University of Kansas, Dept. of EntomologyGoogle Scholar
  24. Kellogg, Vernon. 1906. ‘Scientific Aspects of Luther Burbank’s Work.’ Popular Science Monthly 69: 363–374.Google Scholar
  25. Kellogg, Vernon. 1907. Darwinism To-Day: A Discussion of Present-Day Scientific Criticism of the Darwinian Selection Theory, Together with a Brief Account of the Principal Other Proposed Auxiliary and Alternative Theories of Species-Forming. New York:Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  26. Kellogg, Vernon. 1910. ‘Insect Breeding.’ Annual Report - American Breeders’ Association 6: 98–100.Google Scholar
  27. Kellogg, Vernon, Bell, Ruby G. 1903. ‘Variations Induced in Larval, Pupal and Imaginal Stages of Bombyx Mori by Controlled Varying Food Supply.’ Science 18: 741–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kellogg, Vernon, Bell, Ruby G. 1904. ‘Studies of Variation in Insects.’ Proceedings of the Washington Academy of Sciences 6: 203–332.Google Scholar
  29. Kellogg, Vernon, Smith, Ruby G. 1908. Inheritance in Silkworms, I. Leland Stanford Junior University Publications University Series. Stanford:Stanford University.Google Scholar
  30. Kimmelman, Barbara. 1983. ‘The American Breeder’s Association: Genetics and Eugenics in an Agricultural Context, 1903–13.’ Social Studies of Science 13(2): 163–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ——Kimmelman, Barbara. 1987. A Progressive Era Discipline: Genetics at American Agricultural Colleges and Experment Stations, 1900–1920. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  32. —— 1992. “Organisms and Interests in Scientific Reasearch: R.A. Emerson’s Claims for the Unique Contributions of Agricultural Genetics.” Joan H. Fujimura and Adele E. Clarke (eds.), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 198–232Google Scholar
  33. ——Kimmelman, Barbara. 2006. “Mr. Blakeslee Builds His Dream House: Agricultural Institutions, Genetics, and Careers 1900–1915.” Journal of the History of Biology 39, 241–280.Google Scholar
  34. Kingsland, Sharon. 1991. “The Battling Botanist: Daniel Trembly MacDougal, Mutation Theory, and the Rise of Experimental Evolutionary Biology in America, 1900–1912.” Isis 82(3): 479–509.Google Scholar
  35. Kiyokawa, Yukihiko. 1981. The Development and Diffusion of Improved Hybrid Silkworms in Japan: The First Filial Generation. HSDP-JE Series. Tokyo: United Nations UniversityGoogle Scholar
  36. Kiyokawa, Yukihiko. 1984. ‘The Diffusion of New Technologies in the Japanese Sericultural Industry: The Case of the Hybrid Silkworm.’ Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics 25: 31–59.Google Scholar
  37. Kuriyama, Shigehisa. 2002. The Expressiveness of the Body and the Divergence of Greek and Chinese Medicine. New York:Zone Books.Google Scholar
  38. Largent, Mark. 1999. ‘Bionomics: Vernon Lyman Kellogg and the Defense of Darwinism.’ Journal of the History of Biology 32: 465–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. ——Largent, Mark. 2000. These are the Times of Scientific Ideals: Vernon Lyman Kellogg and Scientific Activism, 1890–1930. Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  40. Largent, Mark. 2009. The So-Called Eclipse of Darwinism.’’ Joe Cain and Michael Ruse (ed.) Descended from Darwin Insights into the History of Evolutionary Studies, 1900– 1970. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, pp. 3–21Google Scholar
  41. Ma, Debin (ed.). 2005. Textiles in the Pacific, 1500–1900. Oxon, UK:Ashgate Press.Google Scholar
  42. Matsubara, Yoko. 2004. ‘The Reception of Mendelism in Japan, 1900–1920.’ Historia Scientiarum 13(3): 232–239.Google Scholar
  43. McCracken, Isabel. 1909. ‘Heredity of the Race Characters Univoltinism and Bivoltinism in the Silkworm (Bombyx mori): A Case of Non-Mendelian Inheritance.’ Journal of Experimental Zoology 7: 747–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morgan, Thomas H. 1907a. Experimental Zoology. New York:Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Morris-Suzuki, Tessa. 1994. Technological Transformation of Japan. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Nakayama, Shigeru. 1984. Academic and Scientific Traditions in China Japan and the West. Tokyo:University of Tokyo. Jerry Dusenbury (trans.).Google Scholar
  47. Nakazawa, Singo. 1993. ‘Articles Published Relating to Toyama.’ Folia Mendeliana 28–29: 69–71.Google Scholar
  48. New York Times. 1905. “Luther Burbank, Wizard of Horticulture—The Man and His Work.” SMA5.Google Scholar
  49. Olby, Robert. 1966. Origins of Mendelism. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Onaga, Lisa. 2009. “Tracing the Totsuzen in Tanaka’s Silkworms: An Exploration of the Establishment of Bombyx mori Mutant Stocks.” Preprints of the Max-Plack Institute for the History of Science (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  51. Paul, Diane and Kimmelman, Barbara. 1988. Mendel in America. Ronald Rainger, Keith R. Benson and Jane Maienschein (eds.) The American Development of Biology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, pp. 281–310.Google Scholar
  52. Pratt, Mary Louise. 1992. Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. New York:Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Raj, Kapil. 2007. Relocating Modern Science. Circulation and Construction of Knowledge in South Asia and Europe, 1650–1900. New York:Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  54. Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 1997. Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford:Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Satzinger, Helga. 2008. ‘Theodor and Marcella Boveri: Chromosomes and Cytoplasm in Heredity and Development.’ Nature Reviews Genetics 9: 231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sinoto, Yoshio. 1972. ‘Mr. Katszo Usui, the first introducer of Mendelism to Japan.’ Folia Mendeliana 6: 285–288.Google Scholar
  57. Spillman, William G. 1903. ‘Mendel’s Law.’ Popular Science Monthly 62(3): 269–280.Google Scholar
  58. Stern, C., Sherwood, E.R. (eds.). 1966. The Origin of Genetics: A Mendel Source Book. San Francisco:W.H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
  59. Sturtevant, Alfred H. 1965. A History of Genetics. New York:Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  60. Takeuchi, Nagamasa. ed. 1940. Toyama Kametarō Kinenroku. Kanagawa Prefecture, Koayumura: [s.n.].Google Scholar
  61. Tanaka, Yoshimaro. 1913. ‘Gametic coupling and repulsion in the silkworm, Bombyx mori.’ Journal of the College of Agriculture, Tohoku Imperial University, Sapporo 5: 115–148.Google Scholar
  62. Toyama, Kametaro. 1894a. ‘On the Spermatogenesis of the Silk-Worm.’ Bulletin of the College of Agriculture, Tokyo Imperial University 2(3): 125–157.Google Scholar
  63. Toyama, Kametaro. 1894b. ‘Preliminary Note on the Spermatogenesis of Bombyx mori, L.’ Zoologischer Anzeiger 17(438): 20–24.Google Scholar
  64. ——Toyama, Kametaro. 1898a. Fukushima-ken Sangyōgakkō-hōkoku. (1):1–15, 38–69, 50–83, 83–85, 87–102, 102–120.Google Scholar
  65. Toyama, Kametaro. 1898b. Fukushima-ken Sangyōgakkō-hōkoku. (2):1–38, 38–69, 83–84, 85–90.Google Scholar
  66. Toyama, Kametaro. 1900. ‘Hyakunen Izen ni Okeru Honpō Kaiko no Shurui.’ Dai Nihon Sanshi Kaihō 9(7): 1–9.Google Scholar
  67. Toyama, Kametaro. 1901, 1902. “Kaiko no Shurui Hikaku Shiken.” Fukushima Kenritsu Sangyō Gakkō Nenpō 3, 4.Google Scholar
  68. Toyama, Kametaro. 1906a. ‘On the Hybridology of the Silkworm.’ Bulletin of the Tokyo Imperial University College of Agriculture 7(1): 259–393.Google Scholar
  69. Toyama, Kametaro. 1906b. ‘On the Hybridology of the Silkworm.’ Dai Nihon Sanshi Kaihō 168: 1–15.Google Scholar
  70. Toyama, Kametaro.—— 1909a. Sanshuron, Vols. 1–2. Tokyo: Maruyama.Google Scholar
  71. Toyama, Kametaro. 1909b. “Futatabi Shurui Kairyō to Kaiko no Iden ni Tsuite Ichigensu.” Dai Nihon Sanshi Kaihō (200):1-6.Google Scholar
  72. Toyama, Kametaro. 1912a. ‘On Certain Characteristics of the Silk-worm Which are Apparently Non-Mendelian.’ Biologisches Centralblatt 32(10): 593–607.Google Scholar
  73. Toyama, Kametaro. 1912b. ‘On the Varying Dominance of Certain White Breeds of the Silkworm, Bombyx mori.’ Zeitschrift fur induktive Abstammungs- und Vererbungslehre 7: 252–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Toyama, Kametaro. 1913. ‘Maternal Inheritance and Mendelism.’ Journal of Genetics 2: 351–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1883. Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  76. Usui, Katsuzo. 1903. “Menderu no hōsoku.” Sinano-hakubutsu-zasshi (7): 2–6, (8):10–15, (9):13–16.Google Scholar
  77. Verson, Enrico. 1889a. “La Spermatogenesi nel Bombyx mori.” R. Stazione Bacologica Sperimentale. Padova: Sovvenute dal Ministero di Agricolt.Google Scholar
  78. Verson, Enrico. 1889b. ‘Zur Spermatogenesis.’ Zoologischer Anzeiger 12(300): 100–104.Google Scholar
  79. Weismann, August, Edward Bagnall Poulton, S. Schönland, and A. E. Shipley. 1891. Essays Upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  80. Wittner, David. 2008. Technology and the Culture of Progress in Meiji Japan. New York:Routledge.Google Scholar
  81. Wyatt, David. 1984. Thailand: A Short History. New Haven:Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Yasukochi, Yuji. 1998. “A Dense Genetic Map of the Silkworm, Bombyx mori, Covering All Chromosomes Based on 1018 Molecular Markers.” Genetics 150(4): 1513–1525.Google Scholar
  83. Yokoyama, Tadao. 1973. “The History of Sericultural Science in Relation to Industry.” Ray F. Smith, Thomas E. Mittler and Carroll N. Smith (eds.), History of Entomology. Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews Inc., pp. 267–284.Google Scholar
  84. Yoshida, Tadashi. 1996. “Educational systems for the training of scientists and engineers in Meiji Japan.” Feza Günergun and Shigehisa Kuriyama (eds.), The Introduction of Modern Science and Technology to Turkey and Japan. Kyoto: International Research Center for Japanese Studies, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar
  85. Yoshido, Atsuo, Bando, Hisanori, Yasukochi, Yuji, Sahara, Ken. 2005. ‘The Bombyx mori Karyotype and the Assignment of Linkage Groups.’ Genetics 170(2): 675–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yoshikawa, Toshiharu. 1980. ‘Shamu-koku Sangyō Komon Gishi.’ Tōnan Ajiya Kenkyu 18(3): 361–386.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science & Technology StudiesCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations