Skip to main content
Log in

Gemmules and Elements: On Darwin’s and Mendel’s Concepts and Methods in Heredity

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal for General Philosophy of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Inheritance and variation were a major focus of Charles Darwin’s studies. Small inherited variations were at the core of his theory of organic evolution by means of natural selection. He put forward a developmental theory of heredity (pangenesis) based on the assumption of the existence of material hereditary particles. However, unlike his proposition of natural selection as a new mechanism for evolutionary change, Darwin’s highly speculative and contradictory hypotheses on heredity were unfruitful for further research. They attempted to explain many complex biological phenomena at the same time, disregarded the then modern developments in cell theory, and were, moreover, faithful to the widespread conceptions of blending and so-called Lamarckian inheritance. In contrast, Mendel’s approaches, despite the fact that features of his ideas were later not found to be tenable, proved successful as the basis for the development of modern genetics. Mendel took the study of the transmission of traits and its causes (genetics) out of natural history; by reducing complexity to simple particulate models, he transformed it into a scientific field of research. His scientific approach and concept of discrete elements (which later gave rise to the notion of discrete genes) also contributed crucially to the explanation of the existence of stable variations as the basis for natural selection.

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

Access this article

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. Quoted by Roderic Guigo in Pearson (2006).

  2. Blending inheritance suggests a mixing (like mixing of liquids) of parents' traits to form the child's traits; soft inheritance is the inheritance of acquired characters, often used synonymously with “Lamarckian inheritance”.

  3. According to Howard (1982, p. 30), Darwin's insistence, even in the final edition of the Origin (1876), that speciation can occur without geographical isolation, which made his theory of evolution “truly inadequate as a mechanism of speciation”, might be explained by the fact that the “contingent aspect of isolation … offended Darwin”.

  4. The assumption of the inheritance of acquired characters and of the use and disuse of organs has usually been related to Lamarck. However, these ideas can be found much earlier, such as in Greek antiquity. Darwin praised Lamarck for his views on evolution and the suggestion of mechanisms for it, but did not accept his law of progressive development, according to which all forms of life possess the tendency to develop upwards, and his claim of spontaneous generation.

  5. C. R. Darwin to J. D. Hooker, 13 September 1864; Darwin held "that there is more useful & [I] trust worthy matter in Gärtner’s work than in all others combined even including Kölreuter perhaps" (Letter 4621 of the Darwin Correspondence Project).

  6. This is shown clearly in his correspondence with colleagues, for example Hooker, Huxley, Lyell, and Wallace, between 1865 and 1872.

  7. Many of Darwin's crossing experiments in plants and animals were devoted to the demonstration of "reversion", for example those in fowls: “I was thus led to make the experiments, recorded in the seventh chapter, on fowls. I selected long-established pure breeds, in which there was not a trace of red, yet in several of the mongrels feathers of this colour appeared; and one magnificent bird, the offspring of a black Spanish cock and white Silk hen, was coloured almost exactly like the wild Gallus bankiva. All who know anything of the breeding of poultry will admit that tens of thousands of pure Spanish and of pure white Silk fowls might have been reared without the appearance of a red feather. The fact, given on the authority of Mr. Tegetmeier, of the frequent appearance, in mongrel fowls, of pencilled or transversely-barred feathers, like those common to many gallinaceous birds, is likewise apparently a case of reversion to a character formerly possessed by some ancient progenitor of the family.” (1868, II, chap. 13) Other crossing experiments dealt with the possibility of generating new races; Darwin did not attempt to experimentally establish statistical laws of heredity or variation.

  8. Darwin cited several authors according to whom more than one spermatozoon was required to fertilise an egg, among them Newport, who allegedly showed that the number of spermatozoa was instrumental for the development and the rate of segmentation of Batrachians; “with respect to plants, nearly the same results were obtained by Kölreuter and Gärtner” (1868, II, 363).

  9. Similarly, Darwin did not make a distinction between "preformed" germs and material particles continually produced from all the body parts, as suggested e.g. by Bonnet: Bonnet’s “famous but now exploded theory of emboîtement implies that perfect germs are included within germs in endless succession, pre-formed and ready for all succeeding generations. According to my view, the germs or gemmules of each separate part were not originally pre-formed, but are continually produced at all ages during each generation, with some handed down from preceding generations" (Darwin 1868, II, p. 375).

  10. Corpus Hippocraticum VII, pp. 471–75 (fifth century BCE), quoted in Vorzimmer (2003).

  11. Letter to William Ogle, Superintendent of Statistics to the Registrar-General, 6 March 1868 (in Darwin 1887, III, pp. 82–3).

  12. C. R. Darwin to Victor Carus, 21 March [1868] (in Darwin 1887, III).

  13. For the longstanding disputes between epigeneticists and preformationists, see for example Roe (1981) and Pinto-Correia (1997).

  14. “So that if really flesh and bones are composed of fire and the like elements, the semen would come rather from the elements than anything else, for how can it come from their composition? Yet without this composition there would be no resemblance. If again something creates this composition later, it would be this that would be the cause of the resemblance, not the coming of the semen from every part of the body.” (Aristotle, book 1, chap. 18).

  15. Even though I am of the opinion, following Morange (2008), that the capacity of reproduction and transmitting information cannot be separated from the presence of complex molecular structures, I agree with Delbrück that Aristotelian logic can be rewarding for modern biologists. In my opinion the criticism raised against Delbrück’s interpretation of Aristotle’s form principle as a genetic programme on the grounds that development should be considered a complex phenomenon not simply a genetic affair (e.g. Vinci and Robert 2005) is lacking in cogency. For interpretations of Aristotle's understanding of the form that is contributed by the male parent, see Witt (1985).

  16. Even though Hugo de Vries in Intracelluläre Pangenesis used Darwin’s term, the underlying concept was strictly Mendelian.

  17. As cited by Mendel in his 1867 reply (in Herskowitz 1962, Supplements).

  18. Ibid.

  19. See Falk (2003). In contrast, Müller-Wille (2007) claims that Mendel’s approach was “biological through and through” and his "elements" were structural elements of reproductive cells, a view which is not supported by this study.

  20. Naegeli (1844), cited from Mazumdar (1995, p. 44).

References

  • Aristotle. On the generation of animals. (http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/AriGene.html).

  • Bowler, P. (2008). What Darwin disturbed: The biology that might have been. Isis, 99, 560–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin Correspondence Project, founded by Frederick Burckhardt, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-4621.

  • Darwin, C. R. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (1st ed., 1st printing). London: John Murray. (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1).

  • Darwin, C. R. (1868). The variation of animals and plants under domestication (1st ed., Vols. I and II). London: John Murray. (http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_VariationunderDomestication.html).

  • Darwin, F. (Ed.). (1887). The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. London: John Murray (http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_LifeandLettersandAutobiography.html).

  • de Beer, G. (1965). Charles Darwin. A scientific biography. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Chadarevian, S. (1996). Laboratory science versus country-house experiments. The controversy between Julius Sachs and Charles Darwin. British Journal for the History of Science, 29, 17–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbrück, Max. (1971). Aristotle-totle-totle. In J. Monod & E. Borek (Eds.), Of microbes and life (pp. 50–55). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairbanks, D., & Rytting, B. (2001). Mendelian controversies: A botanical and historical review. American Journal of Botany, 88, 737–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, R. (2003). Linkage: From particulate to interactive genetics. Journal for the History of Biology, 36, 87–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, R., & Sarkar, S. (1991). The real objective of Mendel’s paper: A response to Monaghan and Corcos. Biology and Philosophy, 6, 447–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. A. (1936). Has Mendel’s work been rediscovered? Annals of Science, 1(2), 115–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gärtner, C. F. (1849). Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Bastarderzeugung im Pflanzenreich. Stuttgart: Herring.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gliboff, S. (1999). Gregor Mendel and the laws of evolution. History of Science, 37, 217–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartl, D. L., & Fairbanks, D. J. (2007). Mud sticks: On the alleged falsification of Mendel’s data. Genetics, 175, 975–979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartl, D. L., & Orel, V. (1992). What did Gregor Mendel think he discovered? Genetics, 131, 245–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herskowitz, I. H. (1962). Genetics. Boston: Little, Brown, Supplements.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, M. J. S. (1992). Discussion: Darwin’s argument in the Origin. Philosophy of Science, 59(3), 461–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. (1988 (1973)). Thematic origins of scientific thought: Kepler to Einstein. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Howard, J. (1982). Darwin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J. (2009). Why didn’t Darwin discover Mendel’s laws? Journal of Biology, 8(15), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. (1995). Epigenetic inheritance and evolution: The Lamarckian dimension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennox, J. G. (2005). Darwin’s methodical evolution. Journal of the History of Biology, 38, 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y. (2008). A new perspective on Darwin’s pangenesis. Biological Reviews, 83, 141–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazumdar, P. (1995). Species and specificity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendel, G. (1866). Experiments in plant hybridization (Versuche űber Pflanzen-Hybriden). Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereins in Brűnn, 4, 3–47 (Read at the meetings of February 8th, and March 8th, 1865; in English translation at mendelweb.org.).

  • Morange, M. (2008). Life explained. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, T. H. (1934). The relation of genetics to physiology and medicine. Nobel lecture. June 4.

  • Müller-Wille, S. (2007). Hybrids, pure cultures, and pure lines: From nineteenth-century biology to twentieth-century genetics. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 38, 796–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olby, R. C. (1966). Origins of Mendelism. New York: Schocken Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olby, R. C. (1997). Mendel, mendelism and genetics. mendelweb.org.

  • Olby, R. C. (2009). Variation and inheritance. In M. Ruse & R. J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to the origin of species (pp. 30–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orel, V. (1996). Gregor Mendel. The first geneticist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, H. (2006). Genetics: What is a gene? Nature, 441, 398–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto-Correira, C. (1997). The ovary of eve. Egg, sperm, and preformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe, S. A. (1981). Matter, life, and generation, 18th-century embryology, and the Haller-Wolff debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (1996). Monad to man. The concept of progress in evolutionary biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (1999 (1979)). The Darwinian revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Schweber, S. (1982). Demons, angels, and probability: Some aspects of British science in the nineteenth century. In A. Shimony & H. Feshbach (Eds.), Physics as natural philosophy (pp. 319–363). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, C., & Sherwood, E. R. (1966). The origin of genetics. San Francisco: Freeman & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturtevant, A. H. (1967). Mendel and the gene theory. In R. A. Brink (Ed.), Heritage from Mendel (pp. 11–15). Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinci, T., & Robert, J. S. (2005). Aristotle and modern genetics. Journal of the History of Ideas, 201–219.

  • Vorzimmer, P. (2003). Inheritance through pangenesis. The dictionary of the history of ideas. Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library.

  • Witt, C. (1985). Form, reproduction, and inherited characteristics in Aristotle’s generation of animals. Phronesis, XXXII, 46–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zirkle, C. (1951). Gregor Mendel and his precursors. Isis, 42, 97–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank Ulrich Charpa and Michel Morange for very helpful comments and criticism, and Ahuva Gaziel for her comments on certain sections.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ute Deichmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Deichmann, U. Gemmules and Elements: On Darwin’s and Mendel’s Concepts and Methods in Heredity. J Gen Philos Sci 41, 85–112 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-010-9122-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-010-9122-0

Keywords

Navigation