Advertisement

Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 73–101 | Cite as

The ``Evolutionary Synthesis'' of George Udny Yule

  • James G. Tabery
Article

Abstract

This article discusses the work ofGeorge Udny Yule in relation to theevolutionary synthesis and thebiometric-Mendelian debate. It has generallybeen claimed that (i.) in 1902, Yule put forththe first account showing that the competingbiometric and Mendelian programs could besynthesized. Furthermore, (ii.) the scientificfigures who should have been most interested inthis thesis (the biometricians W. F. RaphaelWeldon and Karl Pearson, and the MendelianWilliam Bateson) were too blinded by personalanimosity towards each other to appreciateYule's proposal. This essay provides adetailed account of (i.), maintaining thatYule's 1902 proposal is better understood as areduction, not a synthesis of the two programs.The results of this analysis are then used toevaluate (ii.), where I will instead argue thatBateson and the biometricians had good reasonsto avoid endorsing Yule's account.

biometric-Mendelian debate evolutionary synthesis George Udny Yule Karl Pearson law of ancestral heredity reduction Ronald A. Fisher William Bateson 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ankeny, Rachel. A. 2000. “Marvelling at the Marvel: The Supposed Conversion of A.D. Darbishire to Mendelism.” Journal of the History of Biology 33: 315-347.Google Scholar
  2. Bateson,William. 1886. “The Ancestry of the Chordates.” Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science 26: 539-540.Google Scholar
  3. — 1894. Materials for the Study of Variation, with Treated with Especial Regard to Discontinuity in the Origin of Species. London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  4. — 1895. “The Origin of the Cultivated Cineraria.” Nature 51: 605.Google Scholar
  5. — 1901. “Experiments in Plant Hybridization.” R.C. Punnett (ed.), The Scientific Papers of William Bateson, v. II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-3.Google Scholar
  6. — 1902a. “The Facts of Heredity in the Light of Mendel's Discovery.” R.C. Punnett (ed.), The Scientific Papers of William Bateson, v. II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 29-68.Google Scholar
  7. —1902b. “Note on the Resolution of Compound Characters by Cross-Breeding.” R.C. Punnett (ed.), The Scientific Papers of William Bateson, v. II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 69-73.Google Scholar
  8. — 1902c. Mendel's Principles of Heredity, a Defense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press — 1909. Mendel's Principles of Heredity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. — 1923. “Genetics of Primula Sinensis.” R.C. Punnett (ed.), The Scientific Papers of William Bateson, v. II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335-371.Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, J.H. 1983. Natural Selection, Heredity, and Eugenics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cock, A.G. 1973. “William Bateson, Mendelism, and Biometry.” Journal of the History of Biology 6: 1-36.Google Scholar
  12. Darden, Lindley. 1977. “William Bateson and the Promise of Mendelism.” Journal of the History of Biology 10: 87-106.Google Scholar
  13. East, Edward. 1910. “A Mendelian Interpretation of Variation That is Apparently Continuous.” American Naturalist 44: 65-82.Google Scholar
  14. Editorial. 1902. The New Phytologist 1: 1-3.Google Scholar
  15. Falk, Raphael. 1991. “The Dominance of Traits in Genetic Analysis.” Journal of the History of Biology 24: 457-484.Google Scholar
  16. Farrall, Lyndsay. 1975. “Controversy and Conflict in Science: A Case Study-The English Biometric School and Mendel's Laws.” Social Studies of Science 5: 269-301.Google Scholar
  17. Fisher, Ronald A. 1918. “The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance.” Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52: 399-433.Google Scholar
  18. 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: 1-36.Google Scholar
  19. Galton, Francis. 1897. “The Average Contribution of Each Several Ancestor to the Total Heritage of the Offspring.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 61: 401-413.Google Scholar
  20. — 1889. Natural Inheritance. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Hull, David. 1985. “Darwinism as a Historical Entity: A Historiographic Proposal.” David Kohn (ed.), The Darwinian Heritage, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 773-812.Google Scholar
  22. Huxley, Julian. 1942. Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  23. Johannsen, Wilhelm L. 1903. “Concerning Heredity in Populations and in Pure Lines.” Selected Readings in Biology for Natural Sciencesv3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955.Google Scholar
  24. Kendall, Maurice G. 1971. Statistical Papers of George Udny Yule. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
  25. Kevles, Daniel. 1981. “Genetics in the United States and Great Britain 1890-1930: A Review with Speculations.” C. Webster (ed.), Biology, Medicine, and Society 1840-1940, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-216.Google Scholar
  26. Kim, Kyung-Man. 1994. Explaining Scientific Consensus: The Case of Mendelian Genetics. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mackenzie, Donald. 1981. “Sociobiologists in Competition: The Biometry-Mendelism Controversy.” C. Webster (ed.), Biology, Medicine, and Society 1840-1940. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 243-288.Google Scholar
  28. Mackenzie, Donald and Barnes, Barry. 1974. “Historical and Sociological Analyses of Scientific Change: The Case of the Mendelian-Biometrician Controversy in England.” Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  29. — 1979. “Scientific Judgement: The Biometrician-Mendelism Controversy.” B. Barnes and S. Shapin (eds.), Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Change, London: Sage, pp. 191-210.Google Scholar
  30. Mather, K. 1941. “Variation and Selection of Polygenic Characters.” Journal of Genetics 41: 159.Google Scholar
  31. Mayr, Ernst. 1973. “The Recent Historiography of Genetics.” Journal of the History of Biology 6: 125-154.Google Scholar
  32. Mayr, Ernst and Provine, William. 1980. The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Morrison, Margaret. 2002. “Modelling Populations: Pearson and Fisher on Mendelism and Biometry.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53: 39-68.Google Scholar
  34. Nilsson-Ehle, Nils Hermann. 1909. “Kreuzungsuntersuchungen an Hafer und Weizen.” Lunds Univ. Årsskrift n.s., series 2, 5(2): 1-122.Google Scholar
  35. Norton, B.J. 1973. “The Biometric Defense of Darwinism.” Journal of the History of Biology 6: 283-316.Google Scholar
  36. — 1975. “Biology and Philosophy: The Methodological Foundations of Biometry.” Journal of the History of Biology 8: 85-93.Google Scholar
  37. Olby, Robert. 1988. “The Dimensions of Scientific Controversy: The Biometric-Mendelian Debate.” British Journal for the History of Science 22: 299-320.Google Scholar
  38. Pearson, Karl. 1900. The Grammar of Science, 2nd ed. London: A. and C. Black Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  39. —1903. “The Law of Ancestral Heredity.” Biometrika 2: 211-236.Google Scholar
  40. — 1904. “Mathematical Contributions to the Theory of Evolution. XII. On a Generalised Theory of Alternative Inheritance, with Special Reference to Mendel's Laws.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A 203: 53-86.Google Scholar
  41. — 1907. “On the Theory of Inheritance of Quantitative Compound Characters on the Basis of Mendel's Laws, by G.U. Yule: A Review.” Biometrika 5: 481-482.Google Scholar
  42. Provine, William B. 1971. The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Richmond, Marsha L. 2001. “Women in the Early History of Genetics: William Bateson and the Newnham College Mendelians, 1900-1910.” Isis 22: 55-90.Google Scholar
  44. Roll-Hansen, Nils. 1980. “The Controversy between Biometricians and Mendelians: A Test Case for the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.” Social Science Information 19: 501-517.Google Scholar
  45. Sarkar, Sahotra. 1998. Genetics and Reductionism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Shapere, Dudley. 1980. “The Meaning of the Evolutionary Synthesis.” The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Thistleton-Dyer, SirWilliam Turner. 1895. “Origin of the Cultivated Cineraria.” Nature 52: 3, 78, 128.Google Scholar
  48. Weldon, W. F. Raphael. 1890. “The Variations Occurring in Certain Decapod Crustacea I. Crangon vulgaris.” Proceedings of the Royal Society 47: 445-453.Google Scholar
  49. — 1892. “Certain Correlated Variations in Crangon vulgaris.” Proceedings of the Royal Society 51: 2-21.Google Scholar
  50. — 1894. “The Study of Animal Variation, a Review.” Nature 50: 25-26.Google Scholar
  51. —1895. “The Origin of the Cultivated Cineraria.” Nature 52: 54.Google Scholar
  52. —1902. “Mendel's Laws of Alternative Inheritance in Peas.” Biometrika 1: 228-254.Google Scholar
  53. Wright, Sewall. 1978. “The Relation of Livestock Breeding to Theories of Evolution.” Journal of Animal Science 46: 1192-1200.Google Scholar
  54. Yule, George U. 1902. “Mendel's Laws and Their Probable Relations to Intra-Racial Heredity.” The New Phytologist 1: 193-207, 222-238.Google Scholar
  55. —1906. “On the Theory of Inheritance of Quantitative Compound Characters on the Basis ofMendel's Laws-A Preliminary Note.” Report of the Conference on Genetics: 140-142.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • James G. Tabery
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations