[149] See p. 148.
[150] Where was that “logician,” the “consulting-partner,” when this piece of reasoning passed the firm?
[151] “Speichergewebe gelblich—oder weisslich—grün, manchmal auch vollständig hellgelb.” Tschermak (36), p. 480.
[152] In his latest publication on this subject, the notes to the edition of Mendel in Ostwald’s Klassiker (pp. 60–61), Tschermak, who has seen more true exceptions than any other observer, thus refers to them. As to dominance:—“Immerhin kommen vereinzelt auch zweifellose Fälle von Merkmalmischung, d. h. Uebergangsformen zwischen gelber und grüner Farbe, runder und runzeliger Form vor, die sich in weiteren Generationen wie dominantmerkmalige Mischlinge verhalten.” As to purity of the extracted recessives:—Ganz vereinzelt scheinen Ausnahmsfälle vorzukommen."
Küster (22) also in a recent note on Mendelism points out, with reason, that the number of “exceptions” to dominance that we shall find, depends simply on the stringency with which the supposed “law” is drawn. The same writer remarks further that Mendel makes no such rigid definition of dominance as his followers have done.
[153] If the “logician-consulting-partner” will successfully apply this Fallacia acervalis, the “method of the vanishing heap,” to dominant peas, he will need considerable leisure.
[154] I have no doubt there is no universal dominance in eye-colour. Is it quite certain there is no dominance at all? I have searched the works of Galton and Pearson relating to this subject without finding a clear proof. If there is in them material for this decision may perhaps be pardoned for failing to discover it, since the tabulations are not prepared with this point in view. Reference to the original records would soon clear up the point.
[155] See Wichura (46), pp. 55–6.
[156] See above, p. 192.
[157] See above, p. 187.