Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 501–546 | Cite as

Mendelian-Mutationism: The Forgotten Evolutionary Synthesis

Open Access
Article

Abstract

According to a classical narrative, early geneticists, failing to see how Mendelism provides the missing pieces of Darwin’s theory, rejected gradual changes and advocated an implausible yet briefly popular view of evolution-by-mutation; after decades of delay (in which synthesis was prevented by personal conflicts, disciplinary rivalries, and anti-Darwinian animus), Darwinism emerged on a new Mendelian basis. Based on the works of four influential early geneticists – Bateson, de Vries, Morgan and Punnett –, and drawing on recent scholarship, we offer an alternative that turns the classical view on its head. For early geneticists, embracing discrete inheritance and the mutation theory (for the origin of hereditary variation) did not entail rejection of selection, but rejection of Darwin’s non-Mendelian views of heredity and variation, his doctrine of natura non facit saltum, and his conception of “natural selection” as a creative force that shapes features out of masses of infinitesimal differences. We find no evidence of a delay in synthesizing mutation, rules of discrete inheritance, and selection in a Mendelian-Mutationist Synthesis. Instead, before 1918, early geneticists had conceptualized allelic selection, the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, the evolution of a quantitative trait under selection, the probability of fixation of a new mutation, and other key innovations. Contemporary evolutionary thinking seems closer to their more ecumenical view than to the restrictive mid-twentieth-century consensus known as the Modern Synthesis.

Keywords

Mutationism Darwinism de Vries Morgan Bateson Punnett 

References

  1. Adams, M.B. 1980. “Sergei Chetverikov, the Kol’tsov Institute, and the Evolutionary Synthesis.” E. Mayr and W. Provine (eds.), The Evolutionary Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 242–278.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, G. 1969. “Hugo de Vries and the Reception of the “Mutation Theory.” Journal of the History of Biology 2(1): 55–87.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, G.E.1978. Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Man and His Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, G.E.1980. “The Evolutionary Synthesis: Morgan and Natural Selection Revisited.” E. Mayr and W. Provine (eds.), The Evolutionary Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 356–382.Google Scholar
  5. Amundson, R. 2005. The Changing Role of the Embryo in Evolution. Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Biology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Arthur, W. 2000. “The Concept of Developmental Reprogramming and the Quest for an Inclusive Theory of Evolutionary Mechanisms.” Evolution and Development 2(1): 49–57.Google Scholar
  7. Arthur, W. 2004. Biased Embryos and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ayala, F.J., and Fitch, W.M. 1997. “Genetics and the Origin of Species: An Introduction.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94(15): 7691–7697.Google Scholar
  9. Balogh, A.C., and Leimar, O. 2005. “Mullerian Mimicry: An Examination of Fisher’s Theory of Gradual Evolutionary Change.” Proceedings. Biological Sciences/The Royal Society 272(1578): 2269–2275.Google Scholar
  10. Barrett, R.D., and Schluter, D. 2008. “Adaptation from Standing Genetic Variation.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23(1): 38–44.Google Scholar
  11. Bateson, W. 1894. Materials for the Study of Variation, Treated with Especial Regard to Discontinuity in the Origin of Species. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Bateson, W. 1902. Mendel’s Principles of Heredity: A Defense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bateson, W. 1909a. “Heredity and Variation in Modern Light.” A.C. Seward (ed.), Darwin and Modern Science: Essays in Commemoration of the Centenary of the Birgh of Charles Darwin and of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Publication of the Origin of Species. London: Cambridge, pp. 85–101.Google Scholar
  14. Bateson, W. 1909b. Mendel’s Principles of Heredity. New York: Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  15. Bateson, W. 1914. “Inaugural Address.” Nature 93: 635–642.Google Scholar
  16. Bateson, W. 1922. “Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts.” Science 55: 55–61.Google Scholar
  17. Bateson, W., and Saunders, E.R. 1902. “The Facts of Heredity in the Light of Mendel’s Discovery.” Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society I: 125–160.Google Scholar
  18. Beatty, J. 2010. Reconsidering the Importance of Chance Variation.” M. Pigliucci and G. Müller (eds.), Evolution: The Extended Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Bennett, J.H. 1983. Natural Selection, Heredity and Eugenics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Blount, Z.D., Borland, C.Z., and Lenski, R.E. 2008. “Historical Contingency and the Evolution of a Key Innovation in an Experimental Population of Escherichia coli.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(23): 7899–7906Google Scholar
  21. Bowler, P. J. 1978. ‘‘Hugo De Vries and Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Mutation Theory and the Spirit of Darwinism.’’ 35: 55–73.Google Scholar
  22. Bowler, P.J. 1983. The Eclipse of Darwinism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Bowler, P.J. 1988. The non-Darwinian revolution: reinterpreting a historical myth. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Bowler, P.J. 2003. Evolution: The History of An Idea, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. Buttolph, M. 2008. One Hundred and One Mendelians. London: University College London.Google Scholar
  26. Castle, W.E. 1905. “The Mutation Theory of Organic Evolution.” Science 21(536): 521–524.Google Scholar
  27. Charlesworth, B., and Charlesworth, D. 2009. “Darwin and Genetics.” Genetics 183(3): 757–766.Google Scholar
  28. Chouard, T. 2010. “Evolution: Revenge of the Hopeful Monster.” Nature 463(7283): 864–867Google Scholar
  29. Christin, P.A., Weinreich, D.M., and Besnard, G. 2010. “Causes and Evolutionary Significance of Genetic Convergence.” Trends in Genetics: TIG 26(9): 400–405Google Scholar
  30. Cock, A.G., and Forsdyke, D.R. 2008. Treasure Your Exceptions: The Science and Life of William Bateson. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Cook, O.F. 1908. “The Mendelian Inheritance of Mutations.” Science 28(707): 86–88.Google Scholar
  32. Coyne, J.A., and Orr, H.A. 2004. Speciation. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Crew, F.A. 1968. “R. C. Punnett.” Genetics 58(1): 1–7.Google Scholar
  34. Cronin, H. 1991. The Ant and the Peacock. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Cuénot, L. 1909. “Recent Views of L. Cuenot on the Origin of Species by Mutation.” Science 30(778): 768–769.Google Scholar
  36. Cunningham, C.W., Jeng, K., Husti, J., Badgett, M., Molineux, I.J., Hillis, D.M., and Bull, J.J. 1997. “Parallel Molecular Evolution of Deletions and Nonsense Mutations in Bacteriophage T7.” Molecular Biology and Evolution 14(1): 113–116.Google Scholar
  37. Darwin, C. 1868. Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. London: Murray.Google Scholar
  38. Darwin, C. 1872. On the Origin of Species, 6th ed. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  39. Davenport, C.B. 1909. “Mutation.” Fifty Years of Darwinism: Modern Aspects of Evolution. New York: Henry Holt and Company, pp. 160–181.Google Scholar
  40. Dawkins, R. 1987. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  41. de Vries, H. 1901. Die MutationsTheorie: Versuche und Beobachtungen, uber die Enstehung vom Arten in Pflanzenreich. Leipzig: Veit.Google Scholar
  42. de Vries, Hugo. 1905. Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  43. de Vries, Hugo.1909a. The Mutation Theory. Trans. J.B. Famer and A.D. Darbishire. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  44. de Vries, Hugo. 1909b. “Variation.” A.C. Seward (ed.), Darwin and Modern Science: Essays in Commemoration of the Centenary of the Birgh of Charles Darwin and of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species. London: Cambridge, pp. 66–84.Google Scholar
  45. Dean, A.M. 2012. Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. Microbe Magazine, March.Google Scholar
  46. Denver, D.R., Howe, D.K., Wilhelm, L.J., Palmer, C.A., Anderson, J.L., Stein, K.C., Phillips, P.C., and Estes, S. 2010. “Selective Sweeps and Parallel Mutation in the Adaptive Recovery from Deleterious Mutation in Caenorhabditis elegans.” Genome Research 20(12): 1663–1671.Google Scholar
  47. Dietrich, M.R. 2003. “Richard Goldschmidt: Hopeful Monsters and Other ‘Heresies’.” Nature Reviews Genetics 4(1): 68–74.Google Scholar
  48. Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Dobzhansky, T. 1974. “Chance and Creativity in Evolution.” F.J. Ayala and T. Dobzhansky (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: Reduction and Related Problems. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 307–338.Google Scholar
  50. Eck, R.V., and Dayhoff, M.O. 1966. Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure 1966. Washington, DC: National Biomedical Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  51. Eiseley, L. 1958. Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company Inc.Google Scholar
  52. Eldredge, N. 2001. The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. New York: W H Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  53. Fisher, R.A. 1918. “The Correlation Between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52: 399–433.Google Scholar
  54. Fisher, R.A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Fisher, R.A. 1932. “The Bearing of Genetics on Theories of Evolution.” Science Progress 27: 273–287.Google Scholar
  56. Ford, E.B. 1938. “The Genetic Basis of Adaptation.” G.R. de Beer (ed.), Evolution, International Journal of Organic Evolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 43–56.Google Scholar
  57. Freeman, S., and Herron, J.C. 1998. Evolutionary Analysis. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  58. Froggatt, P., and Nevin, N.C. 1971. “The ‘Law of Ancestral Heredity’ and the Mendelian-Ancestrian Controversy in England, 1889–1906.” Journal of Medical Genetics 8(1): 1–36.Google Scholar
  59. Gayon, J. 1998. Darwinism’s Struggle for Survival: Heredity and the Hypothesis of Natural Selection. Trans. M. Cobb. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Gillespie, J.H. 1998. Population Genetics: A Concise Guide. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Goldschmidt, R.B. 1911. Einführung in die Vererbungswissenschaft in zwanzig Vorlesungen für Studierende, Ärzte, Züchter. Leipzig: W. Engelmann.Google Scholar
  62. Gould, S.J. 1977. Ever Since Darwin. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  63. Gould, S.J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Hancock, J.M., and Vogler, A.P. 2000. “How Slippage-Derived Sequences are Incorporated into rRNA Variable-Region Secondary Structure: Implications for Phylogeny Reconstruction.” Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 14(3): 366–374.Google Scholar
  65. Hartl, D.L., and Clark, A.G. 1997. Principles of Population Genetics. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  66. Hendrikse, J.L., Parsons, T.E., and Hallgrimsson, B. 2007. “Evolvability as the Proper Focus of Evolutionary Developmental Biology.” Evolution & Development 9(4): 393–401Google Scholar
  67. Hermisson, J., and Pennings, P.S. 2005. “Soft Sweeps: Molecular Population Genetics of Adaptation from Standing Genetic Variation.” Genetics 169(4): 2335–2352.Google Scholar
  68. Hoquet, T. 2010. “Non-Evolutionary Mutants? A Note on the Castorrex Rabbit.” L. Campos and A. von Schwerin (eds.), Making Mutations: Objects, Practices, Contexts. Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, pp. 85–108.Google Scholar
  69. Hull, D.L. 1985. “Darwinism as a Historical Entity: A Historiographic Proposal.” D. Kohn (ed.), The Darwinian Heritage. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Huxley, J.S. 1942. Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  71. Johannsen, W.L. 1909. Elemente der exakten Erblichkeitslehre. Jena: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
  72. Kim, K-M. 1994. Explaining Scientific Consensus: The Case of Mendelian Genetics. The Conduct of Science Series. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  73. Kimura, M. 1983. The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Kimura, M., and Maruyama, T. 1969. “The Substitutional Load in a Finite Population.” Heredity 24(1): 101–114.Google Scholar
  75. King, J.L. 1971. “The Role of Mutation in Evolution.” L.M. Le Cam, J. Neyman, and E.L. Scott (eds.), Sixth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  76. King, J.L., and Jukes, T.H. 1969. “Non-Darwinian Evolution.” Science 164: 788–797.Google Scholar
  77. Kingsland, S.E. 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
  78. Kirschner, M.W., and Gerhart, J.C. 2005. The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Koonin, E.V. 2011. The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times Press Science.Google Scholar
  80. Macey, J.R., Larson, A., Ananjeva, N.B., and Papenfuss, T.J. 1997. “Replication Slippage May Cause Parallel Evolution in the Secondary Structures of Mitochondrial Transfer RNAs.” Molecular Biology and Evolution 14(1): 30–39.Google Scholar
  81. MacKenzie, D. 1981. “Sociobiologies in Competition: The Biometrician-Mendelian Debate.” C. Webster (ed.), Biology, Medicine and Society 1840–1940. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 243–288.Google Scholar
  82. Mallet, James. 2013. “Darwin and Species.” Michael Ruse (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Darwin and Evolutionary Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–115.Google Scholar
  83. Martin, A., and Orgogozo, V. 2013. “The Loci of Repeated Evolution: A Catalog of Genetic Hotspots of Phenotypic Variation.” Evolution 67(5): 1235–1250Google Scholar
  84. Maynard Smith, J., Burian, R., Kauffman, S., Alberch, P., Campbell, J., Goodwin, B., Lande, R., Raup, D., and Wolpert, L. 1985. “Developmental Constraints and Evolution.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 60(3): 265–287.Google Scholar
  85. Mayr, E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Mayr, E. 1980. “Some Thoughts on the History of the Evolutionary Synthesis.” E. Mayr and W. Provine (eds.), The Evolutionary Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 1–48.Google Scholar
  87. Mayr, E. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Mayr, E. 1988. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Mayr, E. 1991. One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Mayr, E. 1994. “The Resistance to Darwinism and the Misconceptions on Which It was Based.” J.H. Campbell and J.W. Schopf (eds.), Creative Evolution?!. London: Jones & Bartlett Inc., pp. 35–46.Google Scholar
  91. McCandlish, D.L., and Stoltzfus, A. 2014. Modeling Evolution Using the Probability of Fixation: History and Implications. Quarterly Review of Biology, in press.Google Scholar
  92. Meijer, O.G. 1985. “Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?’ Annals of Science 42: 189–232.Google Scholar
  93. Metcalf, M.M. 1905. “Determinate Mutation.” Science 21(531): 355–356Google Scholar
  94. Morgan, T.H. 1904. “The Origin of Species Through Selection Contrasted with Their Origin through the Appearance of Definite Variations.” Popular Science Monthly 67: 54–65.Google Scholar
  95. Morgan, T.H. 1910. “The American Society of Naturalists Chance or Purpose in the Origin and Evolution of Adaptation.” Science 31(789): 201–210Google Scholar
  96. Morgan, T.H. 1923. “The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of Species.” The Scientific Monthly 16: 237–247.Google Scholar
  97. Morgan, T.H. 1903. Evolution and Adaptation. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  98. Morgan, T.H. 1916. A Critique of the Theory of Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Morgan, T.H. 1925. Evolution and Genetics, 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Morgan, T.H. 1932. The Scientific Basis of Evolution, 1st ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  101. Mousseau, T.A., and Roff, D.A. 1987. “Natural Selection and the Heritability of Fitness Components.” Heredity 59(Pt 2): 181–197.Google Scholar
  102. Nei, M. 2013. Mutation-Driven Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Nei, M., and Nozawa, M. 2011. “Roles of Mutation and Selection in Speciation: From Hugo de Vries to the Modern Genomic Era.” Genome Biology and Evolution 3: 812–829Google Scholar
  104. Nordmann, A. 1992. “Darwinians at War: Bateson’s Place in Histories of Darwinism.” Synthese 91: 53–72.Google Scholar
  105. Norton, H.T.J. 1928. “Natural Selection and Mendelian Variation.” Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 28: 1–45.Google Scholar
  106. Orr, H.A. 1996. “Dobzhansky, Bateson, and the Genetics of Speciation.” Genetics 144(4): 1331–1335.Google Scholar
  107. Orr, H.A. 2002. “The Population Genetics of Adaptation: The Adaptation of DNA Sequences.” Evolution, The International Journal of Organic Evolution 56(7): 1317–1330.Google Scholar
  108. Orr, H.A. 2005. “The Genetic Theory of Adaptation: A Brief History.” Nature Reviews Genetics 6(2): 119–127.Google Scholar
  109. Ortmann, A.E. 1907. “Facts and Interpretations in the Mutation Theory.” Science 25(631): 185–190Google Scholar
  110. Pagel, M. 2002. Encyclopedia of Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Pearson, K. 1906. “Walter Frank Raphael Weldon. 1860–1906.” Biometrika 5: 1–52.Google Scholar
  112. Peterson, E.L. 2008. “William Bateson from Balanoglossus to Materials for the Study of Variation: The Transatlantic Roots of Discontinuity and the (Un)Naturalness of Selection.” Journal of the History of Biology 41(2): 267–305.Google Scholar
  113. Pigliucci, M. 2009. “An Extended Synthesis for Evolutionary Biology.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1168: 218–228.Google Scholar
  114. Poulton, E.B. 1909. Fifty Years of Darwinism: Modern Aspects of Evolution. New York: Henry Holt and Company, pp. 8–56.Google Scholar
  115. Provine, W.B. 1971. The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  116. Provine, W.B. 1978. “The Role of Mathematical Population Geneticists in the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s.” Studies in the History of Biology 2: 167–192.Google Scholar
  117. Provine, W.B. 1986. Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  118. Provine, W.B. 2001. The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  119. Punnett, R.C. 1905. Mendelism, 1st ed. London: MacMillan and Bowes.Google Scholar
  120. Punnett, R.C. 1911. Mendelism, 3rd ed. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  121. Punnett, R.C. 1913. “More Mendelism and Mimicry.” Bedrock 2: 496.Google Scholar
  122. Punnett, R.C. 1915. Mimicry in Butterflies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  123. Punnett, R.C. 1930. “Genetics, Mathematics, and Natural Selection.” Nature 126(3181): 595–597.Google Scholar
  124. Reid, G.A. 1913. “Modern Science and Modern Rhetoric.” Bedrock 2: 215–243.Google Scholar
  125. Richmond, M.L. 2006. “The 1909 Darwin Celebration. Reexamining Evolution in the Light of Mendel, Mutation, and Meiosis.” Isis 97(3): 447–484.Google Scholar
  126. Richmond, M.L. 2010. “Women in Mutation Studies: The Role of Gender in the Methods, Practices, and Results of Early Twentieth-Century Genetics.” L. Campos and A. von Schwerin (eds.), Making Mutations: Objects, Practices, Contexts. Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, pp. 11–48.Google Scholar
  127. Rogozin, I.B., Thomson, K., Csuros, M., Carmel, L., and Koonin, E.V. 2008. “Homoplasy in Genome-Wide Analysis of Rare Amino Acid Replacements: The Molecular-Evolutionary Basis for Vavilov’s Law of Homologous Series.” Biology Direct 3: 7Google Scholar
  128. Roll-Hansen, N. 1980. “The Controversy Between Biometricions and Mendelions: A Test Case for the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.” Social Science Information 19(3): 501–517Google Scholar
  129. Roll-Hansen, Nils. 1989. “The Crucial Experiment of Wilhelm Johannsen.” Biology and Philosophy 4(3): 303–329Google Scholar
  130. Sapp, Jan. 2003. Genesis: The Evolution of Biology. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  131. Segerstråle, U. 2002. “Neo-Darwinism.” M. Pagel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 807–810.Google Scholar
  132. Shapiro, J. 2011. Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. New York: FT Press.Google Scholar
  133. Shull, A.F. 1935. “Weismann and Haeckel: One Hundred Years.” Science 81(2106): 443.Google Scholar
  134. Shull, G.H. 1907. “Importance of the Mutation Theory in Practical Breeding.” Proceedings of the American Breeders’ Association 3: 60–67.Google Scholar
  135. Smocovitis, V.B. 1996. Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  136. Stamhuis, I.H., Meijer, O.G., and Zevenhuizen, E.J. 1999. “Hugo de Vries on Heredity, 1889–1903. Statistics, Mendelian Laws, Pangenes, Mutations.” Isis 90(2): 238–267.Google Scholar
  137. Stern, D.L. 2000. “Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation.” Evolution, The International Journal of Organic Evolution 54(4): 1079–1091.Google Scholar
  138. Stoltzfus, A. 2006. “Mutationism and the Dual Causation of Evolutionary Change.” Evolution and Development 8(3): 304–317.Google Scholar
  139. Stoltzfus, A., and Yampolsky, L.Y. 2009. “Climbing Mount Probable: Mutation as a Cause of Nonrandomness in Evolution.” Journal of Heredity 100(5): 637–647.Google Scholar
  140. Streisfeld, M.A., and Rausher, M.D. 2011. “Population Genetics, Pleiotropy, and the Preferential Fixation of Mutations During Adaptive Evolution.” Evolution, International Journal of Organic Evolution 65(3): 629–642Google Scholar
  141. Stubbe, H. 1972. History of Genetics. Trans. T.R.W. Waters. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  142. Sturtevant, A.H. 2001. A History of Genetics. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
  143. Theunissen, B. 1994. “Closing the Door on Hugo de Vries’ Mendelism.” Annals of Science 51(3): 225–248Google Scholar
  144. Vavilov, N.I. 1922. “The Law of Homologous Series in Variation.” Journal of Heredity 12: 47–89.Google Scholar
  145. Wallace, A.R. 1909. Letter to Edward Bagnall Poulton, 22 November 1909. Wallace Letters Online. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/scientific-resources/collections/library-collections/wallace-letters-online/4449/4748/T/details.html. Accessed 5 June 2013.
  146. Winther, R.G. 2000. “Darwin on Variation and Heredity.” Journal of the History of Biology 33: 425–455.Google Scholar
  147. Wood, T.E., Burke, J.M., and Rieseberg, L.H. 2005. “Parallel Genotypic Adaptation: When Evolution Repeats Itself.” Genetica 123(1–2): 157–170.Google Scholar
  148. Woodruff, R.C., and Thompson, J.D. 1998. “Preface.” R.C. Woodruff and J.D. Thompson (eds.), Mutation and Evolution. Contemporary Issues in Genetics and Evolution. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology ResearchRockvilleUSA
  2. 2.Biosystems and Biomaterials DivisionNISTGaithersburgUSA
  3. 3.Program in the History of Science and TechnologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations