Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 85–112 | Cite as

Gemmules and Elements: On Darwin’s and Mendel’s Concepts and Methods in Heredity

  • Ute Deichmann


Inheritance and variation were a major focus of Charles Darwin’s studies. Small inherited variations were at the core of his theory of organic evolution by means of natural selection. He put forward a developmental theory of heredity (pangenesis) based on the assumption of the existence of material hereditary particles. However, unlike his proposition of natural selection as a new mechanism for evolutionary change, Darwin’s highly speculative and contradictory hypotheses on heredity were unfruitful for further research. They attempted to explain many complex biological phenomena at the same time, disregarded the then modern developments in cell theory, and were, moreover, faithful to the widespread conceptions of blending and so-called Lamarckian inheritance. In contrast, Mendel’s approaches, despite the fact that features of his ideas were later not found to be tenable, proved successful as the basis for the development of modern genetics. Mendel took the study of the transmission of traits and its causes (genetics) out of natural history; by reducing complexity to simple particulate models, he transformed it into a scientific field of research. His scientific approach and concept of discrete elements (which later gave rise to the notion of discrete genes) also contributed crucially to the explanation of the existence of stable variations as the basis for natural selection.


Variations Discreteness Gradualism Statistical laws Chance Blending inheritance Soft inheritance Pangenesis Mendel Darwin 



I thank Ulrich Charpa and Michel Morange for very helpful comments and criticism, and Ahuva Gaziel for her comments on certain sections.


  1. Aristotle. On the generation of animals. (
  2. Bowler, P. (2008). What Darwin disturbed: The biology that might have been. Isis, 99, 560–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Darwin Correspondence Project, founded by Frederick Burckhardt,
  4. Darwin, C. R. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (1st ed., 1st printing). London: John Murray. (
  5. Darwin, C. R. (1868). The variation of animals and plants under domestication (1st ed., Vols. I and II). London: John Murray. (
  6. Darwin, F. (Ed.). (1887). The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. London: John Murray (
  7. de Beer, G. (1965). Charles Darwin. A scientific biography. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  8. de Chadarevian, S. (1996). Laboratory science versus country-house experiments. The controversy between Julius Sachs and Charles Darwin. British Journal for the History of Science, 29, 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delbrück, Max. (1971). Aristotle-totle-totle. In J. Monod & E. Borek (Eds.), Of microbes and life (pp. 50–55). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fairbanks, D., & Rytting, B. (2001). Mendelian controversies: A botanical and historical review. American Journal of Botany, 88, 737–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Falk, R. (2003). Linkage: From particulate to interactive genetics. Journal for the History of Biology, 36, 87–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falk, R., & Sarkar, S. (1991). The real objective of Mendel’s paper: A response to Monaghan and Corcos. Biology and Philosophy, 6, 447–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fisher, R. A. (1936). Has Mendel’s work been rediscovered? Annals of Science, 1(2), 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gärtner, C. F. (1849). Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Bastarderzeugung im Pflanzenreich. Stuttgart: Herring.Google Scholar
  16. Gliboff, S. (1999). Gregor Mendel and the laws of evolution. History of Science, 37, 217–235.Google Scholar
  17. Hartl, D. L., & Fairbanks, D. J. (2007). Mud sticks: On the alleged falsification of Mendel’s data. Genetics, 175, 975–979.Google Scholar
  18. Hartl, D. L., & Orel, V. (1992). What did Gregor Mendel think he discovered? Genetics, 131, 245–253.Google Scholar
  19. Herskowitz, I. H. (1962). Genetics. Boston: Little, Brown, Supplements.Google Scholar
  20. Hodge, M. J. S. (1992). Discussion: Darwin’s argument in the Origin. Philosophy of Science, 59(3), 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holton, G. (1988 (1973)). Thematic origins of scientific thought: Kepler to Einstein. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Howard, J. (1982). Darwin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Howard, J. (2009). Why didn’t Darwin discover Mendel’s laws? Journal of Biology, 8(15), 1–8.Google Scholar
  24. Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. (1995). Epigenetic inheritance and evolution: The Lamarckian dimension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lennox, J. G. (2005). Darwin’s methodical evolution. Journal of the History of Biology, 38, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu, Y. (2008). A new perspective on Darwin’s pangenesis. Biological Reviews, 83, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mazumdar, P. (1995). Species and specificity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mendel, G. (1866). Experiments in plant hybridization (Versuche űber Pflanzen-Hybriden). Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereins in Brűnn, 4, 3–47 (Read at the meetings of February 8th, and March 8th, 1865; in English translation at Scholar
  29. Morange, M. (2008). Life explained. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Morgan, T. H. (1934). The relation of genetics to physiology and medicine. Nobel lecture. June 4.Google Scholar
  31. Müller-Wille, S. (2007). Hybrids, pure cultures, and pure lines: From nineteenth-century biology to twentieth-century genetics. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 38, 796–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olby, R. C. (1966). Origins of Mendelism. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
  33. Olby, R. C. (1997). Mendel, mendelism and genetics. Scholar
  34. Olby, R. C. (2009). Variation and inheritance. In M. Ruse & R. J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to the origin of species (pp. 30–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Orel, V. (1996). Gregor Mendel. The first geneticist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pearson, H. (2006). Genetics: What is a gene? Nature, 441, 398–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinto-Correira, C. (1997). The ovary of eve. Egg, sperm, and preformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Roe, S. A. (1981). Matter, life, and generation, 18th-century embryology, and the Haller-Wolff debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ruse, M. (1996). Monad to man. The concept of progress in evolutionary biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ruse, M. (1999 (1979)). The Darwinian revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schweber, S. (1982). Demons, angels, and probability: Some aspects of British science in the nineteenth century. In A. Shimony & H. Feshbach (Eds.), Physics as natural philosophy (pp. 319–363). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  42. Stern, C., & Sherwood, E. R. (1966). The origin of genetics. San Francisco: Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  43. Sturtevant, A. H. (1967). Mendel and the gene theory. In R. A. Brink (Ed.), Heritage from Mendel (pp. 11–15). Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  44. Vinci, T., & Robert, J. S. (2005). Aristotle and modern genetics. Journal of the History of Ideas, 201–219.Google Scholar
  45. Vorzimmer, P. (2003). Inheritance through pangenesis. The dictionary of the history of ideas. Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library.Google Scholar
  46. Witt, C. (1985). Form, reproduction, and inherited characteristics in Aristotle’s generation of animals. Phronesis, XXXII, 46–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zirkle, C. (1951). Gregor Mendel and his precursors. Isis, 42, 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jacques Loeb Centre for the History and Philosophy of the Life SciencesBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations