Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. 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  
  • 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  
  • Francis Galton's contribution to genetics.Ruth Schwartz Cowan - 1972 - Journal of the History of Biology 5 (2):389-412.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • The concepts of dormancy, latency, and dominance in nineteenth-century biology.Margaret Campbell - 1983 - Journal of the History of Biology 16 (3):409-431.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Hugo De Vries and the Reception of the "Mutation Theory".Garland E. Allen - 1969 - Journal of the History of Biology 2 (1):55 - 87.
    De Vries' mutation theory has not stood the test of time. The supposed mutations of Oenothera were in reality complex recombination phenomena, ultimately explicable in Mendelian terms, while instances of large-scale mutations were found wanting in other species. By 1915 the mutation theory had begun to lose its grip on the biological community; by de Vries' death in 1935 it was almost completely abandoned. Yet, as we have seen, during the first decade of the present century it achieved an enormous (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  • Hugo de Vries and the reception of the?mutation theory?Garland E. Allen - 1969 - Journal of the History of Biology 2 (1):55-87.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations