[16] In Pearson’s modification the parents contribute 0·3, the grandparents 0·15, the great-grandparents ·075.
[17] See the works referred to above.
[18] This conception was clearly formed by Naudin simultaneously with Mendel, but it was not worked out by him and remained a mere suggestion. In one place also Focke came very near to the same idea (see Bibliography).
[19] See von Guaita, Ber. naturf. Ges. Freiburg X. 1898 and XI. 1899, quoted by Professor Weldon (see later).
[20] This fact sufficiently indicates the difficulties involved in a superficial treatment of the phenomenon of reversion. To call such reversions as those named above “returns to ancestral type” would be, if more than a descriptive phrase were intended, quite misleading. It is not the ancestral type that has come back, but something else has come in its guise, as the offspring presently prove. For the first time we thus begin to get a rationale of “reversion.”
[21] It will be understood from what follows, that the existence of mosaic zygotes is no proof that either component gamete was mosaic.
[22] A few additional particulars are given in Tschermak’s edition.
[23] [This translation was made by the Royal Horticultural Society, and is reprinted with modifications and corrections, by permission. The original paper was published in the Verh. naturf. Ver. in Brünn, Abhandlungen, IV. 1865, which appeared in 1866.]
[24] [It is to the clear conception of these three primary necessities that the whole success of Mendel’s work is due. So far as I know this conception was absolutely new in his day.]
[25] [Mendel uses the terms “albumen” and “endosperm” somewhat loosely to denote the cotyledons, containing food-material, within the seed.]