In the Study of Evolution progress had well-nigh stopped. The more
vigorous, perhaps also the more prudent, had left this field of science
to labour in others where the harvest is less precarious or the yield
more immediate. Of those who remained some still struggled to push
towards truth through the jungle of phenomena: most were content
supinely to rest on the great clearing Darwin made long since.
Such was our state when two years ago it was suddenly discovered that
an unknown man, Gregor Johann Mendel, had, alone, and unheeded, broken
off from the rest--in the moment that Darwin was at work--and cut a way
through.
This is no mere metaphor, it is simple fact. Each of us who now looks
at his own patch of work sees Mendel’s clue running through it: whither
that clue will lead, we dare not yet surmise.
It was a moment of rejoicing, and they who had heard the news hastened
to spread them and take the instant way. In this work I am proud to
have borne my little part.
But every gospel must be preached to all alike. It will be heard by the
Scribes, by the Pharisees, by Demetrius the Silversmith, and the rest.
Not lightly do men let their occupation go; small, then, would be our
wonder, did we find the established prophet unconvinced. Yet, is it
from misgiving that Mendel had the truth, or merely from indifference,
that no naturalist of repute, save Professor Weldon, has risen against
him?
In the world of knowledge we are accustomed to look for some strenuous
effort to understand a new truth even in those who are indisposed to
believe. It was therefore with a regret approaching to indignation that
I read Professor Weldon’s criticism[1]. Were such a piece from the hand
of a junior it might safely be neglected; but coming from Professor
Weldon there was the danger--almost the certainty--that the small band
of younger men who are thinking of research in this field would take it
they had learnt the gist of Mendel, would imagine his teaching exposed
by Professor Weldon, and look elsewhere for lines of work.
[1] _Biometrika_, I., 1902, Pt. II.
In evolutionary studies we have no Areopagus. With us it is not--as
happily it is with Chemistry, Physics, Physiology, Pathology, and
other well-followed sciences--that an open court is always sitting,
composed of men themselves workers, keenly interested in every new
thing, skilled and well versed in the facts. Where this is the case,
doctrine is soon tried and the false trodden down. But in our sparse
and apathetic community error mostly grows unheeded, choking truth.
That fate must not befall Mendel now.
It seemed imperative that Mendel’s own work should be immediately put
into the hands of all who will read it, and I therefore sought and
obtained the kind permission of the Royal Horticultural Society to
reprint and modify the translation they had already caused to be made
and published in their Journal. To this I add a translation of Mendel’s
minor paper of later date. As introduction to the subject, the same
Society has authorized me to reprint with alterations a lecture on
heredity delivered before them in 1900. For these privileges my warm
thanks are due. The introduction thus supplied, composed originally for
an audience not strictly scientific, is far too slight for the present
purpose. A few pages are added, but I have no time to make it what it
should be, and I must wait for another chance of treating the whole
subject on a more extended scale. It will perhaps serve to give the
beginner the slight assistance which will prepare him to get the most
from Mendel’s own memoir.
* * * * *
The next step was at once to defend Mendel from Professor Weldon. That
could only be done by following this critic from statement to statement
in detail, pointing out exactly where he has gone wrong, what he has
misunderstood, what omitted, what introduced in error. With such
matters it is easy to deal, and they would be as nothing could we find
in his treatment some word of allusion to the future; some hint to the
ignorant that this is a very big thing; some suggestion of what it all
_may_ mean if it _be_ true.
Both to expose each error and to supply effectively what is wanting,
within the limits of a brief article, written with the running pen,
is difficult. For simplicity I have kept almost clear of reference to
facts not directly connected with the text, and have foregone recital
of the now long list of cases, both of plants and animals, where the
Mendelian principles have already been perceived. These subjects are
dealt with in a joint Report to the Evolution Committee of the Royal
Society, made by Miss E. R. Saunders and myself, now in the Press. To
Miss Saunders who has been associated with me in this work for several
years I wish to express my great indebtedness. Much of the present
article has indeed been written in consultation with her. The reader
who seeks fuller statement of facts and conceptions is referred to the
writings of other naturalists who have studied the phenomena at first
hand (of which a bibliography is appended) and to our own Report.
I take this opportunity of acknowledging the unique facilities
generously granted me, as representative of the Evolution Committee,
by Messrs Sutton and Sons of Reading, to watch some of the many
experiments they have in progress, to inspect their admirable records,
and to utilise these facts for the advancement of the science of
heredity. My studies at Reading have been for the most part confined to
plants other than those immediately the subject of this discussion, but
some time ago I availed myself of a kind permission to examine their
stock of peas, thus obtaining information which, with other facts since
supplied, has greatly assisted me in treating this subject.
* * * * *
I venture to express the conviction, that if the facts now before us
are carefully studied, it will become evident that the experimental
study of heredity, pursued on the lines Mendel has made possible, is
second to no branch of science in the certainty and magnitude of the
results it offers. This study has one advantage which no other line of
scientific inquiry possesses, in that the special training necessary
for such work is easily learnt in the practice of it, and can be learnt
in no other way. All that is needed is the faithful resolve to scamp
nothing.
If a tenth part of the labour and cost now devoted by leisured persons,
in this country alone, to the collection and maintenance of species of
animals and plants which have been collected a hundred times before,
were applied to statistical experiments in heredity, the result in a
few years would make a revolution not only in the industrial art of the
breeder but in our views of heredity, species and variation. We have at
last a brilliant method, and a solid basis from which to attack these
problems, offering an opportunity to the pioneer such as occurs but
seldom even in the history of modern science.
We have been told of late, more than once, that Biology must become an
_exact_ science. The same is my own fervent hope. But exactness is not
always attainable by numerical precision: there have been students of
Nature, untrained in statistical nicety, whose instinct for truth yet
saved them from perverse inference, from slovenly argument, and from
misuse of authorities, reiterated and grotesque.
The study of variation and heredity, in our ignorance of the causation
of those phenomena, _must_ be built of statistical data, as Mendel
knew long ago; but, as he also perceived, the ground must be prepared
by specific experiment. The phenomena of heredity and variation are
specific, and give loose and deceptive answers to any but specific
questions. That is where our _exact_ science will begin. Otherwise we
may one day see those huge foundations of “biometry” in ruins.
But Professor Weldon, by coincidence a vehement preacher of precision,
in his haste to annul this first positive achievement of the precise
method, dispenses for the moment even with those unpretending forms of
precision which conventional naturalists have usefully practised. His
essay is a strange symptom of our present state. The facts of variation
and heredity are known to so few that anything passes for evidence; and
if only a statement, or especially a conclusion, be negative, neither
surprise nor suspicion are aroused. An author dealing in this fashion
with subjects commonly studied, of which the literature is familiar and
frequently verified, would meet with scant respect. The reader who has
the patience to examine Professor Weldon’s array of objections will
find that almost all are dispelled by no more elaborate process than a
reference to the original records.
With sorrow I find such an article sent out to the world by a Journal
bearing, in any association, the revered name of Francis Galton,
or under the high sponsorship of Karl Pearson. I yield to no one in
admiration of the genius of these men. Never can we sufficiently regret
that those great intellects were not trained in the profession of the
naturalist.
Mr Galton suggested that the new scientific firm should have a
mathematician and a biologist as partners, and--soundest advice--a
logician retained as consultant[2]. Biologist surely must one partner
be, but it will never do to have him sleeping. In many well-regulated
occupations there are persons known as “knockers-up,” whose thankless
task it is to rouse others from their slumber, and tell them work-time
is come round again. That part I am venturing to play this morning, and
if I have knocked a trifle loud, it is because there is need.
_March, 1902._
[2] _Biometrika_, I. Pt. I. p. 5.