Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘Further Development’ of Mendel’s legacy? Erich von Tschermak-Seysenegg in the context of Mendelian–biometry controversy, 1901–1906

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Theory in Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The contribution of Erich von Tschermak-Seysenegg (1871–1962) to the beginning of classical genetics is a matter of dispute. The aim of this study is to analyse, based on newly accessible archive materials, the relevance of his positions and theoretical views in a debate between advocates of early Mendelian explanation of heredity and proponents of biometry, which took place in England around 1901–1906. We challenge not only his role of an ‘external consultant’, which at the time de facto confirmed his status of ‘rediscoverer’ of Mendel’s work but also analyse his ambivalent positions which are to be seen as a part of ‘further development’ (Weiterführung), a development of Mendel’s legacy as he understood it. Second, there is an interesting aspect of establishing connections within an ‘experimental culture’ along the Mendel’s lines of thought that was parallel to the first step of institutionalizing the new discipline of Genetics after 1905/06. Part of the study is also the analysis of contribution of his older brother Armin von Tschermak-Seysenegg (1870–1952) who—much like in the case of ‘rediscovery’ of 1900–1901—was for his younger brother an important source of theoretical knowledge. In this particular case, it regarded Bateson’s ‘Defence’ of Mendel from 1902.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Unfortunately, the inventory of H. de Vries’ correspondence does not include the letters of W. Bateson, or/and W.F.R. Weldon and K. Pearson (Zevenhuizen (1996), pp. 88–96).

  2. Armin (Eduard Gustav) von Tschermak-Seysenegg (September 21, 1870 in Vienna, Austria to October 9, 1952 in Bad Wiessee, Germany) studied medicine at the Universities of Vienna, Austria, and Heidelberg, Germany. After completing his studies in Vienna in 1895, he moved to Leipzig. From 1899 until 1906, he worked at the University of Halle, where he was appointed adjunct professor in 1902. He counted himself to the school of E. Hering. After 1906, he returned to Vienna where he temporarily received full professorship in physiology and medical physics at the Veterinary College (Hochschule für Tiermedizin), a school he helped to establish. In 1909–1911, he served as its Rector. In 1913, he came to Prague, Bohemia, to fill a vacancy at the Institute of Physiology, a venerable institution founded in the nineteenth century by J. E. Purkinje. After receiving full professorship, he was appointed director of this Institute. He continued to lecture in Prague at the German (Charles) University until the end of WWII in 1945. His research focused mainly at general and special physiology (physiology of sight), anatomy, and neurology. He co-edited the Zeitschrift für Physiologie, the Zeitschrift für Sinnesphysiologie, and the Archiv für Augenheilkunde. He was a member of several scientific societies and academies across Europe. In 1936, together with Th. H. Morgan he became member of the Academy of Sciences of the Holy See (Pontificia Academia Scientiarum) in the Vatican. He died on October 9, 1952 in Bad Wiessee in Bavaria.

  3. There is a problem with the English translation of ‘Werthigkeit’ dating back to 1906 and Bateson’s corrections of Tschermak’s paper on ‘The Importance of Hybridisation in the Study of Descent’, in: Wilks, W. (1907), $$$Report of the third international conference 1906 on genetics, London: Royal Horticultural Society, p. 279. We assume that more accurate is the ‘valuation’ since the German expression for ‘valency’ is ‘Valenz’, and Tschermak used it some of his German-published papers in different context (Olby 1985, pp. 121, 129). For understanding as ‘capacity to prevail, or its ability to breed in subsequent generations’ see Harwood 2000, p. 1064.

  4. Immediately in 1900 and 1901, E.T.S. corresponded with F. Schindler (May 22, 1900, May 14, 1901, January 11, 1901, and November 14, 1901), E. von Proskowetz (June 4, 1900), C. Fruwirth (May 23, 1901), C. Fruwirth (May 23, 1901), and J. v. Wiesner (October 27, 1901).

  5. Weldon to E.T.S., October 26, 1901, Archiv der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (hereinafter A ÖAW) Wien, C1, 1–27.

  6. Ibid.

  7. Ibid. This articulated aim is important in connection with Bateson’s statement from 1902 that “Professors Weldon refers to no experiments of his own and presumably has made none“, see Bateson 1902, p. 129.

  8. Weldon to E.T.S., November 21, 1901, AÖAW Wien, C1, 1–27.

  9. Ibid.

  10. Weldon to E.T.S., February 18, 1902, AÖAW Wien, C1, 1–27.

  11. Pearson to E.T.S., June 23, 1902, Wien, AÖAW Wien, C1, 1–27.

  12. Pearson to E.T.S., July 11, 1902, AÖAW Wien, C1, 3–66.

  13. E.T.S. to Weldon, September 1, 1902, University College (hereinafter UC) London, Pearson Papers, Nr. 804/7. Unfortunately the addressee is not clearly stated.

  14.  E.T.S. to Pearson, s.d., UC London, Pearson Papers, Nr. 804/7. In the original: “… das Manuscript meiner Besprechung der beiden Publicationen von Bateson für Ihre geschätzte Zeitschrift Biometrika”.

  15.  E.T.S. to Pearson, s.d., UC London, Pearson Papers, Nr. 804/7.

  16.  E.T.S. to Weldon, March 9, 1904, UC London, Pearson Karl, Nr. 874/7 (see Pearson 1904).

  17.  Bateson to E.T.S., September 2, 1902, AÖAdW Wien, C1, 1–27.

  18.  The reason is that Tschermak’s first article was delivered to the editors on June 2, 1900. Moreover, Bateson himself mentions on p. 61 de Vries’s letter of October 31, 1900.

  19. Bateson to E.T.S., January 1, 1903, AÖAW Wien, C1, 1–27.

  20.  Bateson to E.T.S., December 19, 1903, AÖAW Wien, C1, 1–27.

  21. Bateson to E.T.S., February 15, 1905, AÖAW Wien, C1, 1–27.

  22. Bateson to E.T.S., February 4, 1904, AÖAW Wien, C1, 1–27.

  23. Beteson to E.T.S., October 11 and October 30, 1906, AÖAW Wien, C1, 1–27. Tschermark’s contribution was parallely in German and English. It, first, occured in German (von Tschermak-Seysenegg 1906), and secondly in English in 1907.

References

  • Allen GE (1979) Life science in the twentieth century. Cambridge University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen GE (2002) The classical gene: its nature and its legacy. In: Parker LS et al (eds) Mutating concepts, evolving disciplines: genetics, medicine and society. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 11–41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barthelmess A (1952) Vererbungswissenschaft. K. Alber, Freiburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson W (1901) Problems of heredity as a subject for horticultural investigation. J Royal Hortic Soc 25:54–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson W (1902) Mendel’s principles of heredity: a defence by W. Bateson. Cambridge University Press, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson W, Saunders ER (1902) Royal Society reports to the Evolution Committee 1902: report I. Harrison and Sons, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson W (1907) Discussion. In: Wilks W (ed) Report of the third international conference 1906 on Genetics. London: Royal Horticulture Society, p 283

  • Bowler P (1989) The Mendelian revolution. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson EA (2004) Mendel’s legacy. the origin of classical genetics. CSHLP, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cock AG (1973) Wiliam Bateson, Mendelism and biometry. JHB 10:1–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corcos AF, Monaghan FV (1986a) Tschermak: a non-discoverer of Mendelism: I: a historical note. JH 77:468–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Corcos AF, Monaghan FV (1986b) Tschermak: a non-discoverer of Mendelism. II. A critique. JH 78:208–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Corcos AF, Monaghan FV (1987) Correns, an independent discoverer of Mendelism? I: a historical/critical note. JH 78:330

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Corcos AF, Monaghan FV (1990) Mendel’s work and its rediscovery: a new perspective. Plant Sci 9:197–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Darden L (1977) Wiliam Bateson and the promise of Mendelism. JHB 10:87–106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Farrall LA (1975) Controversy and conflict in science: a case study: The English Biometric School and Mendel’s Laws. Soc Stud Sci 5:269–301

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hänsel H (1962) Die Bedeutung Tschermaks für die Züchtungsforschung und Pflanzenzüchtung. Verh. d. Zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 101/102:13–17

  • Harwood J (1997) The reception of genetic theory among academic plant breeders in Germany, 1900–1930. Sveriges Utsädesförenings Tidskrift 107:187–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Harwood J (2000) The rediscovery of Mendelism in agricultural context: Erich von Tschermak as plant-breeder. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sciences de la vie/Life Sciences 323:1061–1067

  • Johannsen W (1923) Hundert Jahre Vererbungsforschung, in: Verh. d. Gesellschaft deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte-87. Versammlung zu Leipzig. Leipzig: Verlag von F. C. W. Vogel:70–104

  • Kevles DJ (1981) Genetics in the United States and Great Britain 1890–1930: A Review with Speculation. In: Webster Ch (ed) Biology, medicine and society 1840–1940. CUP, Cambridge, pp 193–215

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kříženecký J (1965) Gregor Johann Mendel 1822–1884: Texte und Quellen zu seinem Wirken und Leben. J.A. Barth, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie D (2000) Sociobiologies in competition: the biometrician-Mendelian debate. In: Webster Ch (ed) Biology, medicine, and society, 1840–1940. CUP, Cambridge, pp 243–288

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie D, Barnes B (1975) Biometriker versus Mendelianer. Kölner Ztschr. f. Soz. u. Sozialpsych. (Sonderheft 18):165–196

  • Mayr E (1973) The recent historiography of genetics. JHB 6:125–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moore R (2001) The ‘rediscovery’ of Mendel’s work. Bioscene 27:13–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Wille S (2005) Early Mendelism and the subversion of taxonomy: epistemological obstacles as institutions. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 36:465–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson-Ehle H (1924) Einige Züge aus der Entwicklung des Mendelismus. Naturwiss 12:757–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olby R (1979) Mendel no Mendelian? Hist Sci 17:53–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Olby R (1985) Origins of Mendelism, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Olby R (1987) William Bateson’s introduction of Mendelism to England: a reassessment. BJHS 20:399–420

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Olby R (1988) The Dimensions of scientific controversy: the biometric–Mendelian debate. BJHS 22:299–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson K (1901) On the principle of homotyposis and its relation to heredity, to the variability of the individual, and to that of the race. Pt. I: Homotyposis in the Vegetable Kingdom. Phil Transac Royal Soc A 197:285–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson K (1904) Mendel´s Law. Nat 70: 626–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson K (1910) Darwinism, biometry and some recent biology. Biometrika 7:368–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platt R (1959) Mendel, Darwin and Galton. Med Hist 87:87–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Provine WB (1971) The origins of theoretical population genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Punnett RC (1950) Early days of genetics. Heredity 4:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond ML (2008) Wiliam Bateson’s pre- and post-mendelian research program in ‘Heredity and Development’, in a cultural history of heredity IV, preprint 323. MPIWG, Berlin, pp 213–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts HF (1924) Plant hybridization before Mendel. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Roemer-Bromberg T (1914) Mendelismus und Bastardzüchtung der landwirtschaftlichen Kulturpflanzen (=Arbeiten der DLG). DLG, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Roll-Hansen N (1980) The Controversy between biometricians and Mendelians: a test case for the sociology of scientific knowledge. Soc Sci Inf 19:501–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roll-Hansen N (1997) The role of genetic theory in the success of the Svälof research station. Sveriges Utsädesföreningens Tidskrift 107:196–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruckenbauer P (2000) E. von Tschermak-Seysenegg and the Austrian contribution to plant breeding. Vorträge f Pflanzenzücht 48:31–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheibe A (1970) Erich von Tschermak-Seysenegg. In: Franz G, Haushofer H (eds) Große Landwirte. DLG, Frankfurt/Main, pp 31–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Simunek M, Hoßfeld U, et al (2011) The Mendelian Dioskuri. Correspondence of Armin with Erich von Tschermak-Seysenegg, 1898–1951: Studies in the history of sciences and humanities, vol 27. ÚSD AV ČR, Praha

  • Stern C, Sherwood E (eds) (1966) The Origin of genetics: a Mendel source book. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern C, Sherwood E (1978) A note on the ‘three rediscoverers’. Folia Mendeliana 13:237–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbe H (1941) Erich von Tschermak-Seysenegg zum 70: Geburtstage. Naturwiss 29:696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturtevant AH (1965) The early Mendelians. Proc Am Philos Soc 109:199–204

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tschermak-Seysenegg E (1900) Ueber künstliche Kreuzung bei Pisum sativum. BDBG 18(1900):232–239

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tschermak-Seysenegg A (1901a) Künstliche Kreuzung und Bastardzüchtung. MMW 42:1427

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tschermak-Seysenegg E (1901b) Weitere Beiträge über Verschiedenwerthigkeit der Merkmale bei Kreuzung von Erbsen und Bohnen: Vorläufige Mittheilungen. BDBG 19:35–51

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tschermak-Seysenegg E (1901c) Ueber Züchtung neuer Getreiderassen mittelst künstlicher Kreuzung. Kritisch-historische Betrachtungen. Ztschr. f. d. landwirt. Versuchsw in Österreich 4:1029–1060

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tschermak-Seysenegg E (ed) (1901d) Gregor Mendel: Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden (=Ostwalds Klassiker der exakten Wissenschaften Bd. 121). W Engelmann, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tschermak-Seysenegg E (1902) Der gegenwärtige Stand der Mendel’schen Lehre und die Arbeit von W. Bateson. Ztschr. f. d. landwirt. Versuchsw in Österreich 5:1365–1392

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Tschermak-Seysenegg E (1903) Die Lehre von den formbildenden Faktoren (Variation, Anpassung, Selektion, Mutation, Kreuzung) und ihre Bedeutung für die rationelle Pflanzenzüchtung. Jahrb. d. landwirt. Pflanzen- u. Tierzücht.: 3–45

  • von Tschermak-Seysenegg A (1904a) Über die neueren Anschauungen über die Entstehung der Arten. MMW 51:364–365

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tschermak-Seysenegg E (1904) Die Theorie der Kryptomerie und des Kryptohybridismus. Beihefte z Bot Centralbl 16:11–35 (I. Mitteilung ueber die Existenz kryptomerer Pflanzen)

  • von Tschermak-Seysenegg E (1905) Die Mendel’sche Lehre und die Galton’sche Theorie der Ahnenerbe. ARGB 2:663–672

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tschermak-Seysenegg E (1906) Ueber die Bedeutung des Hybridismus für die Deszendenzlehre. Biol Zentralbl 26:881–888

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tschermak-Seysenegg E (1912) Bastardierungsversuche an Levkojen, Erbsen und Bohnen mit Rücksicht auf die Faktorenlehre. ZIAV 7:81–234

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tschermak-Seysenegg E (1913) Examen de la theorie des facteurs par la recordisement methodique des hybrides. In: de Vilmorin P (ed) IVe conference international de génétique, Paris 1911: Comptes rendus rapports. Masson, Paris, pp 91–95

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tschermak-Seysenegg E (1931) Mendelismus und Pflanzenzüchtung (lecture presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Sciences in Vienna on June 3, 1931), Vienna

  • von Tschermak-Seysenegg E (1958) Leben und Wirken eines österreichischen Pflanzenzüchters. Beitrag zur Geschichte der Wiederentdeckung der Mendelschen gesetze und ihre Anwendung für die Pflanzenzüchtung. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin-Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Weldon WFR (1902–1903) On the Ambiguity of Mendel’s categories. Biometrika 2:44–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Weldon WFR (1902b) Mendel’s laws of alternative inheritance in peas. Biometrika 1:228–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieland T (2004) Wir beherrschen den pflanzlichen organismus besser…“Wissenschaftliche Pflanzenzüchtung in Deutschland, 1889–1945 (=Abhandlungen und Berichte, NF, Bd. 20). München, DM

  • Wieland T (2006) Scientific theory and agricultural practice: plant breeding in Germany from the late 19th century to the early 20th century. JHB 39:309–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (1967) The foundation of population genetics. In: Brink AR (ed) Heritage from Mendel. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp 245–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunderlich G (1951) Die Bedeutung Tschermaks für den österreichischen Getreidebau. Ztschr f Pflanzenzücht 30:478–483

    Google Scholar 

  • Zevenhuizen EJA (1996) De wereld van Hugo de Vries de inventarissen van het archief van Hugo de Vries an van de andere archieven en collecties van de Bibliotheek Biologisch Centrum, Faculteit der Biologie, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ernst-Haeckel Haus, Friedrich-Schiller University, Berggasse 7, 07745, Jena, Germany

    Michal Simunek, Uwe Hoßfeld & Olaf Breidbach

Authors
  1. Michal Simunek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Uwe Hoßfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olaf Breidbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olaf Breidbach.

Additional information

This paper originated as part of a research project DFG HO–2143/8–1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Simunek, M., Hoßfeld, U. & Breidbach, O. ‘Further Development’ of Mendel’s legacy? Erich von Tschermak-Seysenegg in the context of Mendelian–biometry controversy, 1901–1906. Theory Biosci. 131, 243–252 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-012-0158-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-012-0158-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation