190 THE MENDEL JOURNAL 



The points which I wish to make in this note are : — 



(1) A clear and correct statement of the purpose 

 with which our study of variation in single combs was 

 undertaken. 



(2) An attempt to show that this purpose was a 

 scientificahy justifiable one. 



(3) A definite statement of my position in regard 

 to the problems of inheritance in general. 



(1) " Ardent Mendelian " states that the objects of 

 the investigation reported in the paper criticised were 

 (1) to answer the " one cj[uestion as to whether single 

 combs or their various grades breed true " (Mendel 

 Journal, p. 183) ; (2) to determine " whether these 

 different varieties of single comb may be hereditarily 

 transmitted in accordance with Mendelian principles " 

 (loc. cit. p. 184) ; and (3) to " cast doubt upon Mendelian 

 conclusions '' {loc. cit. p. 193). Each one of these state- 

 ments is absolutely and entirely' incorrect, and I hereby 

 challenge " Ardent Mendelian " to bring forward any 

 evidence from the paper he criticises to justify them. 



As to what were the objects of the paper I cannot 

 do better than quote from the original : " All studies 

 of this kind take their point of departure in an attempt 

 to analyze a broad Mendelian category. In Mendelian 

 discussion ' single comb ' is a ' unit character.' All 

 ' single ' combs are put together in one category,* all 

 ' pea ' combs in another. But nothing is more certain 

 than that all single combs are not alike in respect to 

 any feature whatsoever, even including their ' singleness.' 

 How much and in what ways do they vary ? Do the 

 variants within the categorj^ mendelize ? Are all variants 

 exactty equivalent in crossing with other categories ? 

 An answer to these and other easily suggested questions 

 could not fail, it seems to us, to throw light on the 

 problem of the constitution and physiology of the gametic 

 determinants of ' unit characters/ assuming that such 

 determinants exist. 



" In this paper we have endeavoured to give a clear 

 and, so far as possible, quantitative description of the 



* This, I may say, was written before I had seen Rep. Evol. Comm, 

 for 1908. 



