136 A Defence of Mendel's 



the barest outline of the nature of the "hybrid-character," 

 and I have not sought to indicate the conclusions that we 

 reach when the reasoning so clear in the case of the hybrid 

 is applied to the pure forms and their own characters. 



In these considerations we reach the very base on which 

 all conceptions of heredity and variation must henceforth 

 rest, and that it is now possible for us to attempt any such 

 analysis is one of the most far-reaching consequences of 

 Mendel's principle. Till two years ago no one had made 

 more than random soundings of this abyss. 



I have briefly discussed these possibilities to assist the 

 reader in getting an insight into Mendel's conceptions. 

 But in dealing with Professor Weldon we need not make 

 this excursion ; for his objection arising from the absence of 

 uniform regularity in dominance is not in point. 



The soundness of Mendel's work and conclusions would 

 be just as complete if dominance be found to fail often 

 instead of rarely. For it is perfectly certain that varieties 

 can be chosen in such a way that the dominance of one 

 character over its antagonist is so regular a phenomenon 

 that it can be used in the way Mendel indicates. He chose 

 varieties, in fact, in which a known character was regularly 

 dominant and it is because he did so that he made his 

 discovery*. When Professor Weldon speaks of the exist- 

 ence of fluctuation and diversity in regard to dominance as 

 proof of a " grave discrepancy " between Mendel's facts and 

 those of other observers!, he merely indicates the point at 

 which his own misconceptions began. 



* As has been already shown the discovery could have been 

 made equally well and possibly with greater rapidity in a case in 

 which the hybrid had a character distinct from either parent. The 

 cases that would not have given a clear result are those where there 

 is irregular dominance of one or other parent. 



f Weldon, p. 240. 



