Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T13:50:46.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

William Bateson's Introduction of Mendelism to England: A Reassessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Robert Olby
Robert Olby
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The recognition of Gregor Mendel's achievement in his study of hybridization was signalled by the ‘rediscovery’ papers of Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns and Erich Tschermak. The dates on which these papers were published are given in Table 1. The first of these—De Vries ‘Comptes rendus paper—was in French and made no mention of Mendel or his paper. The rest, led by De Vries’ Berichte paper, were in German and mentioned Mendel, giving the location of his paper. It has long been accepted that the first account of Mendel's work in English was given by the Cambridge zoologist, William Bateson, to an audience of Fellows of the Royal Horticultural Society in London on 8 May, 1900. This is based on two sources: the paper ‘Problems of Heredity as a Subject for Horticultural Investigation’, published in the Society's journal later that year and stated as ‘Read 8 May, 1900’, and Beatrice Bateson's account of the event over a quarter of a century later. Of the paper which her husband gave on that occasion she wrote:

He had already prepared this paper, but in the train on his way to town to deliver it, he read Mendel's actual paper on peas for the first time. As a lecturer he was always cautious, suggesting rather than affirming his own convictions. So ready was he however for the simple Mendelian law that he at once incorporated it into his lecture.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 399 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

It is a pleasure to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr M. J. S. Hodge and Dr O. G. Meijer for reading two earlier drafts of this paper and for making most helpful suggestions.

1 Bateson, B., William Bateson F.R.S. Naturalist, Cambridge, 1928, p. 73.Google Scholar

2 Meijer, O.G., ‘De Vries no Mendelian’, Annals of Science, (1985), 42, pp. 220–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Bateson, W., ‘Problems of heredity as a subject of horticultural investigation’, J.R. Hort. Soc. (1901), 25, pp. 55–61.Google Scholar

4 ‘Societies: Royal Horticultural Lecture’, Gardeners' Chronicle, (1900), III, 27, p. 303.Google Scholar

5 See Vries, De, ‘Unity in variability’, University Chronicle of California, (1898), 1, pp. 334–336, 342Google Scholar; and Bateson, W., Materials for the Study of Variation Treated with Especial Regard to Discontinuity in the Origin of the Species, Cambridge, 1894, pp. 36, 40, 43.Google Scholar

6 Bateson, , op. cit. (3), p. 57Google Scholar. Reprinted in Kříženecký, J. (ed.) Fundamenta Genetica, Brno and Prague, 1965, pp. 229–230Google Scholar. Referred to in future as ‘Kříženecký’.

7 de Vries, H., ‘Sur la loi de disjonction des hybrides’, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris (1900), 130, pp. 845–847Google Scholar. Reprinted in Kříženecký, , pp. 93–95.Google Scholar

8 de Vries, H., ‘Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde’, Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges. (1900), 18, pp. 83–90Google Scholar. Reprinted in Kříženecký, , pp. 96–102.Google Scholar

9 Mendel, G., ‘Versuche ueber Pflanzenhybriden’, Verb. Naturf. Ver. Brunn. (1865), 4, Abhandlungen, pp. 3–47, published 1866Google Scholar. Reprinted in Kříženecký, , pp. 57–92.Google Scholar

10 De Vries, , Intracellulare Pangenesis, Jena, 1889CrossRefGoogle Scholar; English translation by Gager, C.S., Intracellular Pangenesis, Chicago, 1910.Google Scholar

11 W. Bateson to his wife (?) cited in: Olby, R., Origins of Mendelism 2nd edn., Chicago and London, 1985, p. 115.Google Scholar

12 ‘Societies: Royal Horticultural. Scientific Committee’. Gardeners' Chronicle, (1900), III, 27, p. 318.Google Scholar

13 The annual Temple Flower Show of the Society, held on 23 May, was described in The Times as ‘one of the principal events of the London season’. It was noted that this exhibition was visited by the Queen of Sweden and Norway, and that Her Majesty was received by the President, Sir Trevor Lawrence, and Lady Bredallane. Also present were the Duchess of Connaught, the Duchess of Devonshire, Warwick, Lady and Cross, Lord. The Times, 24 05 1900, p. 14c.Google Scholar

14 I am grateful to Dr A.W.F. Edwards for drawing my attention to the existence of the Cambridge holding of this journal, and to Peter Gautrey for confirming that it was in the possession of the Library by 1880. On a subsequent visit to the Library I was surprised to discover the letter from Brünn bound in with the first two volumes (see Fig. 1).

15 Bateson, W., Mendel's Principles of Heredity: A Defence, Cambridge, 1902, p. 35.Google Scholar

16 Bateson, W., J.R. Hort. Soc. (1901), 26, p. 1.Google Scholar

17 Hurst, Charles Chamberlain (1870–1947)Google Scholar was one of Bateson's early collaborators. Although Rona Hurst knew him as a first cousin, it was not until 1922 that they married.

18 For information see: Hurst, R., ‘The Hurst Collection of Genetical Letters’, Mendel Newsletter, (1975), 11, pp. 1–7.Google ScholarPubMed

19 I am grateful to Onno Meijer for conducting a search for this item in Amsterdam.

20 De Vries to Hurst, undated. Cambridge University Library, Add. 7955/2/15. The greater part of this postcard has already been quoted by Hurst, Rona in: ‘The R.H.S. and the birth of genetics’, J. R. Hort. Soc. (1949), 74, p. 383Google Scholar; and in her What's All This About Genetics? London, 1951, p. 24.Google Scholar

21 Hurst, R., op. cit. (20) (1949), p. 383.Google Scholar

22 Hurst, C.C., ‘Notes on some experiments in hybridisation and cross-breeding’, J. R. Hort. Soc. (1889), 24, p. 121.Google Scholar

23 Stomps, T.J., ‘On the rediscovery of Mendel's work by Hugo de Vries’, J. Hered. (1954), 45, p. 294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Meijer, , op. cit. (2), pp. 220–224.Google Scholar

25 Bateson, W., ‘Hybridisation and cross-breeding as a method of scientific investigation’, J. R. Hort. Soc. (1899), 24, p. 61Google Scholar; Kříženecký, , p. 220.Google Scholar

26 Bateson, W., op. cit. (25), p. 66Google Scholar. Kříženecký, , p. 224.Google Scholar

27 Bateson, B., op. cit. (1), p. 73.Google Scholar

28 ‘Royal Horticultural Society: Scientific Committee’, Gardeners' Chronicle, (1900), III, 27 (Suppl.), p. 3.Google Scholar

29 Galton, F., ‘The average contribution of each several ancestor to the total heritage of the offspring’, Proc. Roy. Soc. (1897), 61, p. 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Galton, , Natural Inheritance, London, 1889, p. 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Galton had later explained that ‘The neglect of individual prepotencies is justified in a law that avowedly relates to average results; they must of course be taken into account when applying the general law to individual cases’. Galton, , op. cit. (29), p. 402.Google Scholar

31 Pearson, K., ‘Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution—On the law of reversion’, Proc. Rov. Soc. (1900), 66, p. 141.Google Scholar

32 Pearson, , op. cit. (31), pp. 142–143.Google Scholar

33 Bateson, W., op. cit. (3), p. 56Google Scholar; Kříženecký, , p. 229.Google Scholar

34 Bateson, ibid.

35 Bateson, , op. cit. (3), p. 57Google Scholar; Kříženecký, , p. 229.Google Scholar

36 Bateson, W., op. cit. (5) (1984), p. 419.Google Scholar

37 Gallon, , ‘Discontinuity in evolution’, Mind, (1894), II, 3, pp. 363–372Google Scholar. Extracts of this review are reprinted in: Olby, , op. cit. (11), pp. 181–186.Google Scholar

38 Bateson, , op. cit. (3), p. 59Google Scholar; Kříženecký, , p. 232.Google Scholar

39 Bateson, W., ‘Experiments Undertaken by W. Bateson, F.R.S., and Miss E.R. Saunders’, Reports of the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society, (1902), Report 1, 127Google Scholar; Kříženecký, , p. 244.Google Scholar

40 Weldon, W.F.R., ‘Mendel's laws of alternative inheritance in peas’, Biometrika, (1902), 1, pp. 228–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Bateson, W., Mendel's Principles of Heredity: A Defence, Cambridge, 1902.Google Scholar

42 Bateson, , op. cit. (39), pp. 138–154 and 155–160Google Scholar; Kříženecký, , pp. 255–270 and 270–275.Google Scholar

43 Bateson, , op. cit. (39), p. 152Google Scholar. Kříženecký, , p. 268.Google Scholar

44 Bateson, , op. cit. (39), pp. 152–153Google Scholar; Kříženecký, , p. 268.Google Scholar

45 Bateson, , op. cit. (39), p. 158Google Scholar. Kříženecký, , p. 274.Google Scholar

46 Bateson, , op. cit. (41), p. 116.Google Scholar

47 Kottler, M., ‘Hugo de Vries and the rediscovery of Mendel's laws’, Ann. Sci. (1979), 36, pp. 517–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Campbell, M., ‘Did De Vries discover the law of segregation independently?’, Ann. Sci. (1980), 37, pp. 639–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Readers of the BJHS no doubt realize that this author's recent paper ‘Pairing in Mendel's theory’, BJHS, (1986), 18, pp. 337–340Google Scholar, misrepresents the argument of my paper: ‘Mendel no Mendelian?’, History of Science, (1979), 17, pp. 53–72Google Scholar. Those who wish to follow up this subject should consult my paper as reprinted in Olby, , op. cit. (11), pp. 234–258Google Scholar. In this reprint minor modifications have been made to the text in the interests of clarity.

48 Meijer, , op. cit. (2).Google Scholar

49 Olby, , op. cit. (11), pp. 120–124.Google Scholar

50 Stern, C. and Sherwood, E. R., The Origin of Genetics. A Mendel Sourcebook, San Francisco and London, 1966, pp. x–xi.Google Scholar

51 Meijer, , op. cit. (2), pp. 220–223Google Scholar; Olby, , op. cit. (11), pp. 127–130.Google Scholar

52 Cock, A.G., ‘William Bateson, Mendelism and biometry’, J. Hist. Biol. (1971), 6, pp. 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53 Darden, L., ‘William Bateson and the promise of Mendelism’, J. Hist. Biol. (1977), 10, pp. 87–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

54 Darlington, C.D., The Facts of Life, London, 1956, pp. 104–105.Google Scholar

55 Tschermak, E., ‘Weitere Beiträge ueber Verschiedenwerthigkeit der Merkmale bei Kreuzung von Erbsen und Bohnen’, Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges. (1901), 19, pp. 36–37.Google Scholar

56 Bateson, , op. cit. (25), pp. 65–66Google Scholar; Kříženecký, , p. 224.Google Scholar

57 Bateson, , op. cit. (39), p. 159Google Scholar. Kříženecký, , p. 275.Google Scholar

58 Merton, R.K.S., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago and London, 1973, p. 358Google Scholar; Provine, W.B., The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, Chicago and London, 1971, pp. 56–57.Google Scholar

59 Bateson, , op. cit. (41), p. 115.Google Scholar