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  
  • Did de Vries discover the law of segregation independently?Margaret Campbell - 1980 - Annals of Science 37 (6):639-655.
    It is argued that de Vries did not see Mendel's paper until 1900, and that, while his own theory of inheritance may have incorporated the notion of independent units, this pre-Mendelian formulation was not the same as Mendel's since it did not apply to paired hereditary units. Moreover, the way in which the term ‘segregation’ has been applied in the secondary literature has blurred the distinction between what is explained and the law which facilitates explanation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations