Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Exemplarising the Origin of Genetics: A Path to Genetics (From Mendel to Bateson).Yafeng Shan - 2016 - Dissertation, University College London
    This thesis aims to propose and defend a new way of analysing and understanding the origin of genetics (from Mendel to Bateson). Traditionally philosophers used to analyse the history of genetics in terms of theories. However, I will argue that this theory-based approach is highly problematic. In Chapter 1, I shall critically review the theory-driven approach to analysisng the history of genetics and diagnose its problems. In Chapter 2, inspired by Kuhn’s concept “exemplar”, I shall make a new interpretation of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • How unknown was Mendel's paper?Alexander Weinstein - 1977 - Journal of the History of Biology 10 (2):341-364.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Hugo de vries no mendelian?Onno G. Meijer - 1985 - Annals of Science 42 (3):189-232.
    SummaryIt is argued that Hugo de Vries's conversion to Mendelism did not agree with his previous theoretical framework. De Vries regarded the number of offspring expressing a certain character as a hereditary quality, intrinsic to the state of the pangene involved. His was a shortlived conversion since after the ‘rediscovery’ he failed to unify his older views with Mendelism. De Vries was never very much of a Mendelian. The usual stories of the Dutch ‘rediscovery’ need, therefore, a considerable reshaping.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • Was Mendel's paper on Pisum neglected or unknown?Michael H. MacRoberts - 1985 - Annals of Science 42 (3):339-345.
    Recent reinterpretations of Mendel's 1865 paper on Pisum as normal nineteenth-century science do not automatically solve the neglect issue. Those who argue that there were cognitive grounds for its neglect have only created a greater paradox, for if Mendel's work was not ahead of its time but was simply excellent normal science, then it should have been used by his contemporaries, as indeed was his work on Hieracium, which was average work. An examination of the nineteenth-century data in terms of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Hugo de Vries and the rediscovery of Mendel's laws.Malcolm J. Kottler - 1979 - Annals of Science 36 (5):517-538.
    Hugo de Vries claimed that he had discovered Mendel's laws before he found Mendel's paper. De Vries's first ratios, published in 1897, for the second generation of hybrids were 2/3:1/3 and 80%:20%. By 1900, both of these ratios had become 3:1. These changing ratios suggest that as late as 1897 de Vries had not discovered the laws, although he asserted, from 1900 on, that he had found the laws in 1896. An Appendix details de Vries's Mendelian experiments as described in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations