2 



JOURNAL OF THE EOYAL HORTICULTUEAL SOCIETY. 



his law might be found to include all the phenomena of hybridisation, but 

 in a brief subsequent paper on hybrids of the genus Hieracium* he clearly 

 recognised the existence of unconformable cases. 



Nevertheless, Iwioever much it may be found possible to limit or to extend 

 the principle discovered by Mendel, there can be no doubt that ice have 

 in his work not only a model for future experiments of the same kind, 

 but also a solid foundation from lohich the problem of Heredity may be 

 attacked in the future. 



It may seem surprising that a work of such importance shoidd so long 

 have failed to find recognition and to become current in the loorld oj 

 science. It is true that the journal in ivhich it appeared is scarce, but this 

 circumstance has seldom long delayed general recognition. The cause is 

 unquestionably to be found in the neglect of the experimental study of 

 the problem of Species which supervened on the general acceptance of 

 the Darwinian doctrines. The problem of Species, as Gartner, Kdlreuter^ 

 Naudin, Mendel, and the other hybridists of the first half of the nine- 

 teenth century conceived it, attracted thenceforth no ivorkers. The ques- 

 tion, it ivas imagined, had been ansivered and the debate ended. No one 

 felt any interest in the matter. A host of other lines of ivork were sud- 

 denly opened up, and in 1865 the more vigorous investigators naturally 

 found those new methods of research more attractive than the tedious 

 observations of the hybridisers, lohose inquiries were supposed, moreover^ 

 to have led to no definite result. But if we are to make progress ivith 

 the study of Heredity, and to proceed f urther with the p)roblem " What 

 is a Species ? " as distinct from the other problem Hoio do Sp>ecies 

 survive ? " ive must go back and take up the thread of the inquiry 

 exactly ivhere Mendel dropped it. 



As was stated in a lecture to the Royal Horticultural Society in 1900 

 it is to De Vries, Correns, and Tschermak that ive oive the simultaneous 

 rediscovery, confirmation and extension of MendeVs work. JReferencesf 

 are there given to the chief recent publications relating to the subject, of 

 ivhich the number is rapidly increasing. 



The whole piajoer abounds ivith matters for comment and criticism, 

 ivhich could only be profitable if imdertaken at some length. There are 

 also many deductions and lines of inquiry to ivhich MendeVs facts j^oint, 

 which we in a fuller knoivledge of physiology can perceive. It may, hoiv- 

 ever, be doubted whether in his own day his conclusions could have been 

 extended. 



As some biographical particulars respecting this remarkable investi- 

 gator will be welcome, I subjoin the folloiving brief notice, which ivas 

 published by Correns t on the authority of Dr. von Schanz : Gregor 

 Johann Mendel ivas born on July 22, 1822, at Heinzendorf bei Odrau, in 

 Austrian Silesia. He was the son of well-to-do pieasants. In 1843 he 

 entered as a novice the " Kdniginkloster," an Augustinian foundation in 

 Altbrilnn. In 1847 he was ordained priest. From 1851 to 1853 he studied 

 physics and natural science at Vienna. Thence he returned to his cloister 

 and became a teacher in the Bealschule at Brilnn. Subseauently he was 



* Ahh. Naturf. Brilnn, viii. 1869, p. 26. 



t Journal Royal Horticultural Society, 1900, xxv. p. -54. 



X Bot. Zeitg. Iviii. 1900, No. 15, p. 229. 



