227 



of unimportant unit-characters, whereas the true and most important 

 unit in inheritance is the egg itself ; reproducing the individual 

 with all these qualities. 



This of course is nothing but a play of words ; and if it 

 means anything at all, it means that the use of the Word character 

 in this connection is too little exact. If, instead of concerning us 

 in the first place with the characters we give our attention to all 

 the difFerent factors ; which ultimately in their Cooperation will 

 make the individual with all its characters as we know it, we 

 see that we can do without a number of technical niceties which 

 are not only superfluous but in many cases positively harmfull 

 where they detract from the obvious simplicity of the whole 

 thing. It is rather curious that the only thing which is not simple 

 in Mendelism is its terminology. 



The litterature of the subject fairly bristles with new names 

 for all kinds of characters, and all sorts of hybrids and inherL 

 tances. I believe this is a serious error. There seems to be no 

 reason why experiment should not enrich Biology by at least 

 three new terms, as cumbersome as the phenomena they stand 

 for are simple. Especially are these terms superfluous where the 

 phenomena are perfectly well understood, and can easily be 

 circumscribed in terms like : distribution of genetic factors over 

 the gametes produced by a heterozygote, absence of one causing 

 inactivity of others and action of non-genetic factors. 



If, for instance, two individuals are crossed and the hybrid 

 has a quality which neither parent-form had, we may call this 

 combination of factors, and it is a secondary point what these 

 factors have done in the parents. I thing it absolutely superfluous, 

 not to call it by another name, to say that some „character" of 

 the hybrid was „latent" in one of the parents. 



If in a bakery one evening there will be all the factors 

 for producing bread, such material things as flour and salt and 

 yeast and such factors as the ovenheat and the skill of the baker 

 and his assistants, but that one single factor, water, fails, there 

 will be no bread produced in that bakery during that night. 

 Would it help anyone to understand the Situation, if, instead of 

 simply stating that water was not to be had, we said that bread 

 was there all the time, only in latent condition ? 



It is not even feasible to devide the cases of „latency" into 

 such where one factor would produce a character but is absent, 



15* 



