[6] Comptes Rendus, March 26, 1900, and Ber. d. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. xviii. 1900, p. 83.
[7] This conception of discontinuity is of course pre-Mendelian.
[8] ‘Versuche üb. Pflanzenhybriden’ in the Verh. d. Naturf. Ver. Brünn, iv. 1865.
[9] Note that by these novel terms the complications involved by use of the expression “prepotent” are avoided.
[10] Professor Weldon (p. 232) takes great exception to this statement, which he considerately attributes to “some writers.” After examining the conclusions he obtained by algebraical study of Mendel’s figures I am disposed to think my statement not very far out.
[11] See later.
[12] Tschermak’s investigations were besides directed to a re-examination of the question of the absence of beneficial results on cross-fertilising P. sativum, a subject already much investigated by Darwin, and upon this matter also important further evidence is given in great detail.
[13] For simplicity the case of self-fertilisation is omitted from this consideration.
[14] In all the cases discussed it is assumed that the gametes are similar except in regard to the “heritage” they bear, and that no original variation is taking place. The case of mosaics is also left wholly out of account (see later).
[15] The term “gamete” is now generally used as the equivalent of “germ-cell,” whether male or female, and the term “zygote” is here used for brevity to denote the organism resulting from fertilisation.