The essay describes the development of Hugo de Vries's thinking on heredity from the publication of his Intracellulare Pangenesis in 1889 to the publication of Die Mutations-theorie, Volume 2, in 1903. De Vries's work in the 1890s can be characterized as an attempt to defend his theory of pangenes, especially the fundamental and controversial idea that different characters have different material hereditary carriers. Hybridization experiments served his goal. Recently discovered research notes on hybridization from 1896 suggest that, though he was unaware of Mendel's work, De Vries used the laws of dominance and recessiveness, segregation, and independent assortment to explain the 75:25 ratio in the second generation. He had discovered these laws by applying insights from probability theory to his research. In Die Mutationstheorie De Vries combined central concepts of intracellular pangenesis and his mutation theory by modifying the meanings of important terms and introducing new states of pangenes. In his attempts to describe Mendelian crossings in terms of pangenes and mutations, he became entangled in a number of contradictions. Some of his remarks suggest that he was aware that the Mendelian laws and his own theories of pangenes and mutations could not be made consistent.
Abstract. The beginning of the twentieth century saw the emergence of the discipline of genetics. It is striking how many female scientists were contributing to this new field at the time. At least three female pioneers succeeded in becoming professors: Kristine Bonnevie (Norway), Elisabeth Schiemann (Germany) and the Tine Tammes (The Netherlands). The question is which factors contributed to the success of these womenÕs careers? At the time women were gaining access to university education it had become quite the norm for universities to be sites for teaching and research. They were still expanding: new laboratories were being built and new disciplines were being established. All three women benefited from the fact that genetics was considered a new field promising in terms of its utility to society; in the case of Tammes and Schiemann in agriculture and in the case of Bonnevie in eugenics. On the other hand, the field of genetics also benefited from the fact that these first female researchers were eager for the chance to work in science and wanted to make active contributions. They all worked and studied in environments which, although different from one another, were positive towards them, at least at the start. Having a patron was generally a prerequisite. Tammes profited from her teacherÕs contacts and status. Bonnevie made herself indispensable through her success as a teacher and eventually made her position so strong that she was no longer dependent on a single patron. The case of Schiemann adds something new; it shows the vulnerability of such dependency. Initially, SchiemannÕs teacher had to rely on the first generation of university women simply because he was unable to attract ambitious young men to his institute. In those early, uncertain years of the new discipline, male scientists tended to choose other, better established, and more prestigious disciplines. However, when genetics itself had become an established field, it also became more attractive to men. Our case studies also demonstrate that a new field at first relatively open to women closes its doors to them once it becomes established.
In 1903 the well-known Dutch astronomer Kapteyn published a paper in which he discussed statistical methods which he thought would be relevant for biologists. His motivation was the 1895 paper of Pearson on skew frequency curves. Kapteyn had concluded that the theory was open to grave objections and was not adapted to nonmathematical readers. He was then led to an independent investigation of the subject. This publication would lead to a heated dialogue between Kapteyn and Pearson, in which they accused each other of inappropriate starting points, of plagiarism and of making serious mathematical mistakes. This article evaluates these claims. In addition, Kapteyn's struggle to make his work accessible to biologists is discussed. Copyright (c) 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation (c) 2009 International Statistical Institute.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.