BATESON AND PUNNETT 43 



pende?7ce of particle (gejie) wheritance, although the final expression 

 of the two indepe7ide7it pairs of gejies depejids iipoji an interde- 

 pendent action. All we have learned of the mode of gene action since 

 the tifne of this paper indicates that this is by far the most commoii 

 situation, and that co777pletely i7idependc7it actio7i of a pair of genes 

 at a single locus is rare i7jdeed. It is perhaps imfortimate that most 

 people whose knowledge of ge7ietics comes fro77i high school courses 

 or a ge7ieral university course are exposed principally to the atypical 

 results of Me7idel rather tha7i to a7i a7ialysis of the mode of actio?! of 

 the gene. 



In their original paper Bateso72 a7id Punnett included eight pages of 

 data 071 their experime7its. I have deleted most of these tables, and 

 have retained only those experiments necessary for the aiialysis 

 (Table 1). I have removed all notes 07i the extra toe character, which 

 are 7iot pertijient to our a7ialysis. I have added an extra column to 

 those of Bateson and Pu7mett so that the reader can test his imder- 

 stafiding of the experiment by filling in the mati77g as sy7nbolized by 

 conve7itio7ial 7nethods. 



The first part of the poultry paper includes the authors^ i7Jterpre- 

 tatio7i of their residts. Carefid reading will show that it is almost 

 co77ipletely erroTieous. This was realized by the authors, and the 

 second part of the paper co7nes fro77i a later vohm7e of the Reports. 

 Here the authors correct thetjtselves, and re-evaluate their residts. 

 Again the sy77ibolis772 is likely to be co7ifusi7ig, but the Pimnett 

 square 07i p. 51 becomes Tnore clear if the reader imderstands that 

 ''''no P" or '''no 7?" actually refers to the occurrence of a recessive 

 allele, such as "p" or "r." 



Bateso7i arid Pinmetfs work 07i the sweet pea is significant for 

 several reasons. The paper demo7istrates first of all that heredity in 

 the sweet pea is C07isiderably more complicated tha7i it appeared in 

 Me7idePs work with a closely related species, the garden pea. It also 

 demonstrates that the indepe7idence of passage of the genes betweevi 

 ge7ieratio7is can be lost. Again, it is necessary to i7ispect the authors^ 

 data, a7id 720t to allow their co7iclusions to lead to confusion. The 

 authors appear anxious to have their residts express some general rule 

 through the occurrence of sig7nfica7it proportions, as was the case 

 with M.e72deVs experiments. Their first example, utilizing the char- 

 acteristics of height and growth patter?!, is typically Me7!delia7!, 

 with independence of the ge?ies both in their mode of tra?!smissio?! 

 and i?! their expression. The second example, utilizing the hooded 

 sta?idard a7id flower color, is similar to that of the poultry, i?! that it 

 shows i77terrelatio7!ships between two sets of alleles in the formatio?! 

 of a specific expressio?!. Their third example is the most sig7!ifica?!t 

 for our purposes. Their use of the term '''partial gametic coupli?ig''' 

 as an explanation of the situatio?! they found with pollen shape and 

 flower color does 7iot, of course, explai?! anything. It is a typically 

 human faiVmg to feel that one u?!derstands somethi7!g whe72 one has 

 been able to na77ie it. Bateson and Pu7!nett do not make this 7nistake, 

 for, although they assign names to each situation as it arises, they 



