Note.
Since this chapter was written two contributions of special importance have been made to the study of the Oenothera problems. The first is that of Heribert-Nilsson.[9] The author begins by giving a critical account of the evidence for de Vries's interpretation of the nature of the mutants. In general this criticism pursues lines similar to those sketched in the foregoing chapter, concluding, as I have done, that the chief reason why factorial analysis has been declared to be inapplicable to the Oenothera mutants is because no one has hitherto set about this analysis in the right way. He has also himself made a valuable beginning of such an analysis and gives good evidential reasons for the belief that at least the red veining depends on a definite factor which also influences the size of certain parts of the plant. He argues further that many of the distinctions between the mutants are quantitative in nature. With great plausibility he suggests that the system of cumulative factors which Nilsson-Ehle discovered in the case of wheat (subsequently traced by East in regard to maize) may be operating also in these Oenotheras. According to this system several factors having similar powers may coexist in the same individual, and together produce a cumulative effect. Scope would thus be given for the production of the curious and seemingly irregular numbers so often recorded in the "mutating" families.
Another remarkable observation relating to the crosses of muricata and biennis has been published by Goldschmidt.[10] He finds that in the formation of this cross the female pronucleus takes no part in the development of the zygotic cell, but that when the male pronucleus enters, the female pronucleus is pushed aside and degenerates. As de Vries observed, the reciprocal hybrids are in each case very like the father ("stark patroklin"), a consequence which finds a natural explanation in the phenomenon witnessed by Goldschmidt. The results of the subsequent matings can also be readily interpreted on the same lines. Indications of maternal characters are nevertheless mentioned by de Vries, and if Goldschmidt's account of the cytology is confirmed, these must presumably be referred to the influence of the maternal cytoplasm. Clearly this new work opens up lines of exceptional interest. The interpretation I have offered above must probably be reconsidered. The distinction between the male and female cells of the types may no doubt be ultimately factorial, but it is difficult to regard such a distinction as created by a differential distribution of the ordinary factors.