Abstract
This paper describes the historical background and early formation of Wilhelm Johannsen’s distinction between genotype and phenotype. It is argued that contrary to a widely accepted interpretation (For instance, W. Provine, 1971. The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; Mayr, 1973; F. B. Churchill, 1974. Journal of the History of Biology 7: 5–30; E. Mayr, 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought, Cambridge: Harvard University Press; J. Sapp, 2003. Genesis. The Evolution of Biology. New York: Oxford University Press) his concepts referred primarily to properties of individual organisms and not to statistical averages. Johannsen’s concept of genotype was derived from the idea of species in the tradition of biological systematics from Linnaeus to de Vries: An individual belonged to a group – species, subspecies, elementary species – by representing a certain underlying type (S. Müller-Wille and V. Orel, 2007. Annals of Science 64: 171–215). Johannsen sharpened this idea theoretically in the light of recent biological discoveries, not least those of cytology. He tested and confirmed it experimentally combining the methods of biometry, as developed by Francis Galton, with the individual selection method and pedigree analysis, as developed for instance by Louis Vilmorin. The term “genotype” was introduced in W. Johannsen’s 1909 (Elemente der Exakten Erblichkeitslehre. Jena: Gustav Fischer) treatise, but the idea of a stable underlying biological “type” distinct from observable properties was the core idea of his classical bean selection experiment published 6 years earlier (W. Johannsen, 1903. Ueber Erblichkeit in Populationen und reinen Linien. Eine Beitrag zur Beleuchtung schwebender Selektionsfragen, Jena: Gustav Fischer, pp. 58–59). The individual ontological foundation of population analysis was a self-evident presupposition in Johannsen’s studies of heredity in populations from their start in the early 1890s till his death in 1927. The claim that there was a “substantial but cautious modification of Johannsen’s phenotype–genotype distinction” (Churchill, 1974, p. 24) from a statistical to an individual ontological perspective derives from a misreading of the 1903 and 1909 texts. The immediate purpose of this paper is to correct this reading of the 1903 monograph by showing how its problems and results grow out of Johannsen’s earlier work in heredity and plant breeding. Johannsen presented his famous selection experiment as the culmination of a line of criticism of orthodox Darwinism by William Bateson, Hugo de Vries, and others (Johannsen, 1903). They had argued that evolution is based on stepwise rather than continuous change in heredity. Johannsen’s paradigmatic experiment showed how stepwise variation in heredity could be operationally distinguished from the observable, continuous morphological variation. To test Galton’s law of partial regression, Johannsen deliberately chose pure lines of self-fertilizing plants, a pure line being the descendants in successive generations of one single individual. Such a population could be assumed to be highly homogeneous with respect to hereditary type, and Johannsen found that selection produced no change in this type. Galton, he explained, had experimented with populations composed of a number of stable hereditary types. The partial regression which Galton found was simply an effect of selection between types, increasing the proportion of some types at the expense of others.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, G. 1978. ‹Naturalists and Experimentalists: The Genotype and the Phenotype.’ Studies in History of Biology 3: 179–210.
Bernard, C. 1885. Lecons sur les phénomenes de la vie communs aux animaux et vegetaux. Paris: J.-B. Bailliere et fils.
Christensen, Carl. 1924–1926. Den Danske Botaniks Historie fra de ældste Tider til 1912. 2. Halvbind 1872–1911. København: H. Hagerups Forlag.
Churchill, F.B. 1970. ‹Hertwig, Weismann, and the Meaning of Reduction Division Circa 1890.’ Isis 61: 429–457.
Churchill, F.B. 1974. ‹William Johannsen and the Genotype Concept.’ Journal of the History of Biology 7: 5–30.
de Vries, Hugo. 1889. Intracellulare Pangenesis. Jena:Gustav Fischer.
de Vries, Hugo. 1901. Die Mutationstheorie, Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Entstehung von Arten im Pflanzenreich. Lepzig:von Veit & Comp.
Gayon, Jean and Zallen, Doris T. 1998. “The Role of the Vilmorin Company in the Promotion and Diffusion of the Experimental Science of Heredity in France 1840–1920.” Journal of the History of Biology 31: 241–262.
Gilbert, Scott F. 1978. ‹The Embryological Origins of the Gene Theory.’ Journal of the History of Biology 11: 307–351.
Harwood, J. 2004. ‹Linkage Before Mendelism? Plant-Breeding Research in Central Europe, c. 1880–1910.’ Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, Jean-Paul Gaudilliére (eds.), Classical Genetic Research and its Legacy. The Mapping Cultures of Twentieth-Century Genetics. New York and Abingdon:Routledge, pp. 9–20.
Hertwig, O. 1894. Zeit- und Streitfragen der Biologie. I. Praeformation oder Epigenese? Jena: Guffav Fischer
Hertwig, O. 1898. Die Zelle und die Gewebe II. Jena: Guffav Fischer.
Johannsen, W. 1883. “Plantefysiologiske Meddelelser.” Tidsskrift for Landøkonomi 2(1883): 332–365, 792–795.
Johannsen, W. 1884. “Om Frøhviden og dens Udvikling hos Byg” (About the endosperm and its development in barley), Meddelelser fra Carlsberglaboratoriet (Reports from the Carlsberg Laboratory) 2(3): 103–133. The results were also published in German: “Einleitende anatomische Studien über die Frage eines milden (mehligen) Gersten-Kornes,” Allg. Zeitschr. f. Bierbr. U. Malzfabr 12(1884): 625–750.
Johannsen, W. 1889. “Om Planternes Sjæl.” Tilskueren 6: 17–32, 163–182.
Johannsen, W. 1896. Om Arvelighed og Variabilitet. København: Det Schuboteske Forlag.
Johannsen, W. 1898a. “Nogle Studier over Variation og Forædling med særlig hensyn på Goldthorpe-Byg.” Tidsskrift for Landbrugets Planteavl (senere: Tidsskrift for Planteavl) 5(1899): 63–90 (Lecture given on 2 March 1898 to the Royal Danish Agricultural Society).
Johannsen, W. 1898b. “Om Arvelighedslære og Planteforædling før Darwin.” Ugeskrift for Landmænd 1898: 289–290, 318–322, 343–346, 428–430, 455–456.
Johannsen, W. 1899a. “Nogle Arvelighedsforhold og deres Betydning for Plantedyrkningen.” Dansk Tidsskrift (Gads danske Magasin) 1899: 449–464, 542–557.
Johannsen, W. 1899b. “Fortsatte Studier over Kornsortene. I Om Variabiliteten med Hensyn til Forholdet mellem Kornvægt og Kvelstof-Procent hos Byg.” Meddelelser fra Carlsberglaboratoriet 4(4): 228–313. Also published in German: “Über die Abänderungen der Gerste mit besonderer RÜcksicht auf das Verhältnis des Gewichtes der Körner zu ihremGehalt an Stickstoffhaltigen Substanzen.” Zeischrift f. d. ges. Brauw. 23: 487–622.
Johannsen, W. 1899c. “Nogle Bemerkninger om Arvelighed og Variabilitet.” Garfner.-Tidende. 15(1899): 166–172, 180–182.
Johannsen, W. 1900–1901. “Foreløpig Anmeldelse af Hugo de Vries’ nye Værk: ‹Die Murtationstheorie’.” Biologisk Selskabs Forhandlinger 1900–1901: 7–8.
Johannsen, W. 1902. “Om Organismernes Formrigdom.” Nordisk Tidskrift för Vetenskap (Letterstedske Tidskrift) 1902: 545–565.
Johannsen, W. 1903. Ueber Erblichkeit in Populationen und reinen Linien. Eine Beitrag zur Beleuchtung schwebender Selektionsfragen (On heredity in pure lines and populations. A contribution to pending questions of selection). Jena: Gustav Fischer.
Johannsen, W. 1905. Arvelighedslærens Elementer. Forelæsninger holdte ved København Universitet. København og Kristiania:Gyldendalske Boghandel Nordisk Forlag.
Johannsen, W. 1909. Elemente der Exakten Erblichkeitslehre, 1st ed. Jena: Gustav Fischer (Subsequent thoroughly revised and substantially changed 2nd and 3rd edition were published in 1913 and 1926 respectively).
Johannsen, W. 1910. Self-biographical note in Festskrift udgivet af Kjøbehavns Universitet i Anledning af Universitetets Aarsfest November 1910, pp. 70–73.
Johannsen, W. 1911. “Mutations dans des lignées pures de haricots et discussion au sujet de la mutation en general.” Ph. De Vilmorin (ed.), IV Conference interntionale de genetique, Paris 1911. Comptes Rendus et rapports, Paris 1913, pp. 160–163.
Johannsen, W. 1914. Falske Analogier med henblikk paa Lighed, Slægtskab, Arv, Tradition og Udvikling (false analogies with respect to similarity, kinship, tradition and development). Copenhagen: J. H. Schultz A/S.
Kuhn, T.S. 1974. “Second Thoughts on Paradigms.” F. Suppe (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 459–482. Reprinted in Kuhn, T.S. 1977. The Essential Tension. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, pp. 293–319.
Laktos, Imre. 1970. ‹Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.’ Imre Lakatos, Aklan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–196.
Mayr, E. 1973. ‹The Recent Historiography of Genetics.’ Journal of the History of Biology 6: 125–154.
Mayr, E. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Müller-Wille, S. 2007. ‹Hybrids, Pure Cultures, Pure Lines: From Nineteenth-Century Biology to Twentieth-Century Genetics.’ Studies in History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38: 796–806.
Müller-Wille, S, Orel, V. 2007. ‹From Linnaean Species to Mendelian Factors: Elements of Hybridism, 1751–1870.’ Annals of Science 64: 171–215.
Pearson, K. (Anonymously) 1903. “Prof. Johannsen on heredity.” Nature 69 (17 December 1903): pp. 149–150.
Pearson, K. 1904. (Signing as “The Reviewer”) “With Regard to Mr. Yule’s view ….” Nature 69 (7 January 1904): p. 224.
Provine, W. 1971. The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Roll-Hansen, N. 1986. “Svalöf and the origins of classical genetics.” Gösta Olsson (ed.), Svalöf 1886–1986. Stockholm: LTs förlag, pp. 35–43.
Roll-Hansen, N. 1989. ‹The Crucial Experiment of Wilhelm Johannsen.’ Biology and Philosophy 3: 303–329.
Roll-Hansen, N. 1990. ‹Le croisement des lignes pures: de Johannsen a Nilsson-Ehle.’ Jean-Louis Fischer, William H. Schneider (eds.), Historie de la Genetique. Pratiques, Techniques et Theories. Paris:A.R.P.E.M, pp. 99–125.
Roll-Hansen, N. 2009. “Niels Bohr and Max Delbrück: Balancing Autonomy and Reductionism in Biology.” Brandon Fogel and Phillip Sloane (eds.), Creating a Physical Biology: The Three-Man Paper and the Origins of Molecular Biology (To be published by The University of Chicago Press).
Sapp, Jan. 1983. ‹The Struggle for Authority in the Field of Heredity, 1900–1932: New Perspectives on the Rise of Genetics.’ Journal of the History of Biology 16: 311–342.
Sapp, Jan. 2003. Genesis. The Evolution of Biology. New York:Oxford University Press.
Teich, Mikulas. 1983. ‹Fermentation Theory and Practice: The Beginnings of Pure Yeast Cultivation and English Brewing, 1883–1913.’ Technology and Culture 8: 117–133.
Warming, E. 1880. Den Almindelige Botanik (General botany). Copenhagen: P.G. Philiphens Forlag.
Warming, E. 1886. Den Almindelige Botanik, 2nd ed. Copenhagen: P.G. Philiphens Forlag.
Warming, E. and Johannsen, W. 1895. Den Almindelige Botanikk (General botany), 3rd ed. Copenhagen: P.G. Philiphens Forlag.
Warming, E. and Johannsen, W. 1900. Den Almindelige Botanikk, 4th ed. Copenhagen: Det Nordiske Forlag.
Weldon, W.F.R. 1902. ‹Professor de Vries on the Origin of Species.’ Biometrika 1: 365–374.
Weldon, W.F.R., Pearson, K. 1903. ‹Inheritance in Phaseolus Vulgaris.’ Biometrika 2: 499–503.
Yule, G.U. 1904a. “Professor Johannsen’s Experiments in Heredity: A Review.” The New Phytologist 2: 235–242.
Yule, G.U. 1904b. “Prof. Johannsen on Heredity.” Nature 69 (7 January 1904): 223–224.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roll-Hansen, N. Sources of Wilhelm Johannsen’s Genotype Theory. J Hist Biol 42, 457–493 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-008-9166-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-008-9166-8