The Reactions on Hugo de Vries's "Intracellular Pangenesis"; The Discussion with August Weismann

In 1889 Hugo de Vries published "Intracellular Pangenesis" in which he formulated his ideas on heredity. The high expectations of the impression these ideas would make did not come true and publication was negated or reviewed critically. From the reactions of his Dutch colleagues and the d...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the history of biology 2003-03, Vol.36 (1), p.119-152
Main Author: Stamhuis, Ida H.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
August Weismann
Biology
Book publishing
Botany
Cell Biology - history
Cell nucleus
Collagens
Cytoplasm
Daughter cells
De Vries
de Vries, Hugo (1848-1935)
Genetic inheritance
Genetics
Germ cells
Germany
Heredity - genetics
History of medicine
History of science and technology
History, 19th Century
History, 20th Century
Life sciences
Netherlands
Palaeontology
evolution
genetics
Philosophy, Medical - history
Somatic cells
Weismann
Zoology
Zoology - history
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In 1889 Hugo de Vries published "Intracellular Pangenesis" in which he formulated his ideas on heredity. The high expectations of the impression these ideas would make did not come true and publication was negated or reviewed critically. From the reactions of his Dutch colleagues and the discussion with the famous German zoologist August Weismann we conclude that the assertion that each cell contains all hereditary material was controversial and even more the claim that characters are inherited independently of each other. De Vries felt that he had to convince his colleagues of the validity of his theory by providing experimental evidence. He established an important research program which resulted in the rediscovery of Mendel's laws and the publication of "The Mutation Theory." This article also illustrates some phenomena that go beyond an interesting episode in the development of theories of heredity. It shows that criticism from colleagues can move a researcher so deeply that he feels compelled to set up an extensive research program. Moreover it illustrates that it is not unusual that a creative scientist is only partially willing to take criticism on his theories into account. Last but not least it demonstrates that common opinion on the validity of specific arguments may change in the course of time.
ISSN:0022-5010
1573-0387
DOI:10.1023/A:1022561530690