¹ Froggatt, P. and Nevin, N.C., ‘The “Law of Ancestral Heredity” and the Mendelian-Ancestrian Controversy in England 1889–1906’ Journal of Medical Genetics (1971), viii, p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Provine, W.B., The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, Chicago, 1871, chapters 11, 111, IV.Google Scholar

³ Mackenzie, D. and Barnes, S.B. ‘Biometriker versus Mendelianer. Eine Kontroverse und ihre Erklarung’, Kölner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie (1975), Sonderheft 13, section iv, pp. 165–196Google Scholar, see especially section iv, p. 180 ff. This is the German translation (referred to in future as Kontroverse) of the unpublished English typescript: ‘Historical and Sociological Analyses of Scientific Change: The Case of the Mendelian-Biometrician Controversy in England’, pp. 1–66, which the authors duplicated and distributed in 1974. The reason for giving this source precedence over later more accessible papers is that it offers the most detailed account of their analysis of this debate. However, we shall refer to the revised account by Mackenzie in 1981 (see note 20). The authors' essay: ‘Scientific Judgement: The Biometry-Mendelism Controversy’, in Barnes, S.B. and Shaplin, S. (eds) Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture, Beverley Hills and London, 1979, pp. 191–210Google Scholar is inadequate for our purposes.

⁴ Shapin, S., ‘History of Science and its Sociological Reconstructions’, History of Science (1982), 20, pp. 157–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Bateson, W., ‘Presidential Address’, Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, (1904), 74, 574–592.Google Scholar Reprinted in Bateson, B. (ed) William Bateson, F.R.S. Naturalist, his Essays and Addresses, Cambridge, 1928, pp. 233–259.Google Scholar (This work will be referred to in future as Life.)

⁶ Bateson, W., Mendel's Principles of Heredity, Cambridge, 1909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bateson gave his readers the impression that biometric methods had been shown to be inappropriate to studies of heredity (pp. 6–7).

⁷ Bateson, W., Mendel's Principles of Heredity, a Defence, Cambridge, 1902.Google Scholar

⁸ Lankester, E.R., ‘The Utility of Specific Characters’, Nature (1896), 54, p. 366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Kevles, D.J., ‘Genetics in the United States and Great Britain 1890–1930: A Review with Speculation’, in Webster, C. (ed) Biology, Medicine and Society 1840–1940, Cambridge, 1981, pp. 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Pearson, E., Karl Pearson: An Appreciation of some Aspects of his Life and Work, Cambridge, 1938, p. 36.Google Scholar

¹¹ Searle, G.R., ‘Eugenics and Class’Google Scholar, in Webster, , op. cit. (9), pp. 217–242.Google Scholar

¹² Roll-Hansen, N., ‘The Controversy between Biometricians and Mendelians: A Test Case for the Sociology of Knowledge’, Social Science Information (1980), 19, 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Barnes, S.B., ‘On the Causal Explanation of Scientific Judgement’, Social Science Information (1980), 19, pp. 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Norton, B., ‘Biology and Philosophy: The Methodological Foundations of Biometry’, Journal of the History of Biology (1975), 8, 85–93Google Scholar, and his ‘Metaphysics and Population Genetics: Karl Pearson and the Background to Fisher's Multi-factorial Theory of Inheritance’, Annals of Science (1975), 32, pp. 537–553Google Scholar, and his thesis, Karl Pearson and the Galtonian Tradition: Studies in the Rise of Quantitative Social Biology, Ph.D. Dissertation, London, 1978.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Norton to Mackenzie, undated letter, probably 1974. It relates to Pearson rather than specifically to the controversy between biometricians and Mendelians.

¹⁵ Kontroverse, p. 179Google Scholar, English text, p. 34.

¹⁶ Kontroverse, p. 175Google Scholar, English text, p. 26.

¹⁷ Kontroverse, p. 180Google Scholar, English text, pp. 35, 36.

¹⁸ Idem.

¹⁹ Norton, B., ‘Book Reviews’, British Journal for the History of Science (1983), 16, p. 304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Mackenzie, D., Statistics in Britain. The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge, Edinburgh, 1981, p. 6.Google Scholar Evidently statistical evidence of the kind deployed by Durkheim in his study of suicide is not, according to Mackenzie, required of a structural sociological hypothesis.

²¹ Kontroverse, p. 190Google Scholar, English text, p. 57.

²² Kontroverse, p. 189Google Scholar, English translation, p. 55.

²³ Norton, , op. cit. (19), p. 306.Google Scholar

²⁴ Shapin, , op. cit. (4), p. 197.Google Scholar

²⁵ Barnes, S.B., Interest and the Growth of Knowledge, London, 1977, p. 57.Google Scholar

²⁶ Barnes, , op. cit. (25), p. 58.Google Scholar

²⁷ Idem.

²⁸ Barnes, , op. cit. (25), p. 45.Google Scholar

²⁹ Barnes, , op. cit. (25), p. 62.Google Scholar

³⁰ Mackenzie, , op. cit. (20), pp. 136–137.Google Scholar

³¹ Kontroverse, p. 182Google Scholar, English translation, p. 40.

³² Bateson to W. Branford, Secretary of the Sociological Society, Bateson's copy of letter dated 4 May 1904. Bateson Papers, No. 813, John Innes Institute, Norwich (also available as No. D28A, Coleman Collection, Cambridge University Library).

³³ Bateson, W., ‘Biological Fact and the Structure of Society’, in Life, op. cit. (5), p. 341.Google Scholar

³⁴ Bateson, W., ‘Common-sense in Racial Problems’, 1919, reprinted in Life, op. cit. (5), p. 378 ff.Google Scholar

³⁵ Lock, R.H., Recent Progress in the Study of Variation, Heredity, and Evolution, 2nd edn, London, 1909, p. 283.Google Scholar

³⁶ Stigler, S.M., The History of Statistics. The Measurement of Uncertainty before 1900, Cambridge, Mass., 1986, pp. 337–338.Google Scholar

³⁷ Mackenzie, and Barnes, , op. cit. (3), p. 36.Google Scholar

³⁸ Crowther, J.G., British Scientists of the Twentieth Century, London, 1952, p. 256.Google Scholar Crowther states on p. 289: ‘He [Bateson] was of comfortable middle-class Liberal origin, descended from well-to-do North of England trading families. He was not well-off himself, but he had the ideology of a class which regarded automatic provision of living and education for its members as one of their natural rights’.

³⁹ Kontroverse, p. 180Google Scholar, English text, p. 36. Barnes went so far as to suggest that Bateson's hostility to eugenics was engendered by the interests of class and occupation dependent upon the traditional order, land rather than manufacture, the country rather than the city, scriptural rather than scientistic authority…' Barnes, , op. cit. (25), p. 60Google Scholar. Presumably he was referring to Bateson's membership of St John's College Cambridge, a wealthy land-owning, Anglican foundation. Bateson, like the other Mendelians, was not a landowner, and he was decidedly agnostic towards religion.

⁴⁰ As others have pointed out, Bateson did not agree with the old academic élite on the subject of university degrees for women.

⁴¹ Bateson, W., ‘The Ancestry of the Chordates’, Quarterly Journal of microscopical Science, (1886), 26, pp. 539–540.Google Scholar

⁴² Bateson, W., Materials for the Study of Variation Treated with especial Regard to Discontinuity in the Origin of Species, London, 1894, p. 9.Google Scholar

⁴³ Bateson, W., op. cit. (41), p. 536. (?)Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Mayr, E., The Growth of Biological Thought. Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance, Cambridge, Mass., 1982, p. 545.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Bateson, W., op. cit. (43), p. 574.Google Scholar He wrote The only way in which we may hope to get at the truth is by the organization of systematic experiments in breeding, a class of research that calls perhaps for more patience and more resources than any other form of biological enquiry'.

⁴⁶ Meijer, O.G., ‘De Vries no Mendelian’, Annals of Science, (1985), 42, pp. 189–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁷ Bateson, W. and Bateson, A., ‘On the Variations in Floral Symmetry of Certain Plants having Irregular Corollas’, Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany), (1891), 28, p. 158.Google Scholar See also: Bateson, W., op.cit. (42), p. 77.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ For the fullest account see: Pearson, K., ‘Walter Frank Raphael Weldon, 1860–1906’, Biometrika (1906), 5, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar Reprinted in Pearson, E.S. and Kendall, M.G. (eds), Studies in the History of Statistics and Probability, London, 1970, pp. 265–321.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Bateson, W. to Bateson, A., letter dated 2.ix.1888, in Life, op. cit. (5), p. 39.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Galton, F., Natural Inheritance, London, 1889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵¹ Galton, F., ‘Co-relations and their Measurement, Chiefly from Anthropological Data’, Proceedings of the royal Society, (1888), 40, pp. 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵² Weldon, W.F.R., ‘The Variations occurring in certain Decapod Crustacea. I. Crangon vulgaris’, Proceedings of the royal Society, (1890), 47, pp. 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘Certain correlated Variations in Crangon Vulgaris’, Proceedings of the royal Society, (1892), 51, pp. 2–21.Google Scholar

⁵³ Pearson, E.S., op. cit. (10), p. 19.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Stigler, , op. cit. (36), p. 304.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Weldon, W.F.R., ‘Variation and Selection’, Encyclopedia Britannica, 10th edn (The Times Supplements to the Ninth Edition), 33, p. 637.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Weldon, to Bateson, letter dated 28.ix.1888, p. 10. Bateson Papers, No. 186. John Innes Institute, Norwich. (Coleman Collection No. B13)

⁵⁷ Bateson, W. to Bateson, B., letter dated 16.iv.1906, in Life, op. cit. (5), p. 102.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Bateson, W. and Bateson, A., op. cit. (47), p. 159.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Life, p. 28.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Southward, A.J. and Roberts, E.K., ‘The Marine Biological Association 1884–1984: One Hundred Years of Marine Biology’, Report on the Transactions of the Devon Association for the Advancement of Science, (1984), 116, pp. 155–199.Google Scholar Reprinted as Occasional Publication, No. 3 of the MBL, Plymouth.

⁶¹ Garstang, W., ‘On the Variation, Races and Migration of the Mackerel’, Journal of the marine biological Association, U.K., (1898), 5, pp. 235–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Garstang discussed the question debated since the 1880s as to whether mackerel around our shores constitute a single race which separates only seasonally into two races, one composed of larger, the other of smaller sized fish, or whether two races exist.

⁶² Holt, E.W.L., ‘An Examination of the present State of the Grimsby Trawl Fishery, with especial Reference to the Destruction of immature Fish’, Journal of the marine biological Association, U.K., (1895), 97, pp. 360–379.Google Scholar

⁶³ Weldon, W.F.R. ‘On Variation in the Herring’ (unpublished), Pearson Papers, 263/1, University College London.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Weldon, , op. cit. (52)Google Scholar, and ‘Attempt to Measure the Death-rate due to the Selective Destruction of Carcinus moenas with respect to a particular Dimension’, Proceedings of the Royal Society (1895), 97, pp. 360–379.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Lefevre, G., ‘William Keith Brooks. A Sketch of his Life by some of his former Pupils and Associates’, Journal of experimental Zoology, (1910), 9, p. 6–8.Google Scholar Brooks' influence is discussed in Allen, G.E., Thomas Hunt Morgan. The Man and his Science, Princeton, 1978, pp. 35 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Brooks, W.K., The Law of Heredity. A Study of the Cause of Variation, and the Origin of Living Organisms, Baltimore, 1883, p. 86.Google Scholar Brooks did not hold the same position on all these points in his Foundations of Zoology, New York, 1899Google Scholar. In his opposition to the biometricians he was consistent and may well have influenced Bateson, although his grounds for opposition were not the same as Bateson's.

⁶⁷ Weismann, A., The Germ-Plasm: A Theory of Heredity, London, 1893, pp. 412–413.Google Scholar Cited in Robinson, G., A Prelude to Genetics, Theories of a Material Substance of Heredity: Darwin to Weismann, Lawrence, 1979, p. 99.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Life, op. cit. (5), p. 30.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Life, op. cit. (5), p. 34.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Coleman, W., ‘Bateson and Chromosomes: Conservative Thought in Science’, Centauras (1970) 15, pp. 228–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷¹ Kevles, D., op. cit. (9)Google Scholar and Pearson, E., op. cit. (10).Google Scholar

⁷² For an account of Weldon's first encounter with Natural inheritance at the MBL in Plymouth see Bourne, G.C., ‘Obituary Notices’, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, (1905–1906), p. 112.Google Scholar

⁷³ Weldon, W.F.R., ‘Presidential Address’, Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, (1898), 68, pp. 887–902.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Weldon, , op. cit. (58).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Weldon, , ‘Inheritance in Animals and Plants’, in Strong, T.B. (ed) Lectures on the Method of Science, Oxford, 1906.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Darbishire, A.D., ‘Note on the Results of Crossing Japanese Waltzing Mice with European Albino Races’, Biometrika, (1902), 2, pp. 101–104, 165–173Google Scholar; ‘On the Results of Crossing Japanese Waltzing with Albino Mice’, Biometrika, (1903), 3, pp. 1–51.Google Scholar See also: Weldon, F.J. and Pearson, K., ‘W.F.R. Weldon's Mice Breeding Experiments, Records of Matings Prepared for Press by F.J.W. and K.P.’, Biometrika, (1915), 11, Appendix, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Pearson, K. and Usher, C.H., ‘Albinism in Dogs’, Biometrika, (1929), 21, pp. 144–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also: Pearson, E., op. cit. (10), p. 58.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Tschermak, E., ‘Die Theorie der Kryptomerie und des Kryptohybridismus’, Beihefte zum botanischen Zenfrablatt, (1903), 16, pp. 11–35.Google Scholar For Tschermak's remarks on the Biometrician-Mendelian debate see his: ‘Der gegenwärtige Stand der Mendelschen Lehre und die Arbeiten von Bateson’, Zeitschrift für das land wirtschaftliche Versuchswesen in Österreich, (1902), 12, 1365–1392.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Weldon's notebooks in the Pearson Papers, 264/2, University College London.

⁸⁰ Weldon, W.F.R., ‘Theory of Inheritance’Google Scholar, Pearson Papers, 264/2, University College London.

⁸¹ Bateson, W., op. cit. (5).Google Scholar

⁸² ‘Current Theories of the Hereditary Process’, The Lancet, (1905), pp. 42, 180, 307–308, 512, 584–585, 657, 732, 810.Google Scholar

⁸³ Pearson, K., ‘On a Mathematical Theory of Determinantal Inheritance, from Suggestions and Notes of the Late W. F. R. Weldon’, Biometrika, (1908), 6, pp. 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For an excellent exposition of this theory, see Norton's Ph.D. thesis, op. cit. (note 13), pp. 191–193.

⁸⁴ op. cit. (82), p. 732.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ op. cit. (82), p. 657.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Weldon, , op. cit. (80), p. 9.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Weldon, , op. cit. (80), p. 16.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ I am grateful to Mark Adams for raising this possibility.

⁸⁹ Morgan, T.H., ‘The Assumed Purity of the Germ Cells in Mendelian Results’, Science, (1905), 22, pp. 877–879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁹⁰ Pearson, K., op. cit. (48), p. 2.Google Scholar

⁹¹ E.R. Lankester to Bateson, letter dated 17.ii.1889. Bateson Papers, No. 5, John Innes Institute, Norwich (Coleman Collection, No. A1B).

⁹² Crowther, J.G., op. cit. (38), p. 289.Google Scholar

⁹³ Barnes, S.B., op. cit. (25), p. 63.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Mackenzie, D., op. cit. (20), p. 224.Google Scholar See also p. 6, where he writes ‘Psychological make-up, accident and other similar factors were undoubtedly operative in each individual case’.

⁹⁵ Butler, Samuel (1835–1902)Google Scholar, grandson of Butler, Samuel (1774–1839)Google Scholar. Headmaster of Shrewsbury School and Bishop of Lichfield. The former wrote: Life and Habit, London, 1878Google Scholar, and Evolution, Old and New, London. 1879Google Scholar, Luck or Cunning? as the Means of Organic Modification, London, 1887Google Scholar, also Erewhon, London, 1872Google Scholar, and The Way of All Flesh, London, 1903.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Pearson, K., op. cit. (48), p. 2.Google Scholar It should be noted that although Huxley enthusiastically championed natural selection he did allow for some evolution by discontinuous variation. Weldon never commented on this point!

⁹⁷ Mackenzie was inclined to give more weight to the role of skills associated with different trainings in op. cit. (20), pp. 125–129. He concluded ‘… detailed technical judgements made by the two sides reflect at least in part the social interests of the groups of scientific practitioners with differing skills’. Mackenzie's essay ‘Sociobiologies in Competition: the Biometrician-Mendelian Debate’, in Webster, op. cit (9), pp. 243–288Google Scholar, is identical with chapter vi of Mackenzie's Statistics in Britain, 1.e. op. cit. (20).

⁹⁸ See: Bowler, P., The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900, Baltimore, 1983.Google Scholar