Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Corcos, A.
Right arrow Articles by Monaghan, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Corcos, A.
Right arrow Articles by Monaghan, F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The Journal of Heredity 1984:75(6):499-500
© 1984 The American Genetic Association 75:499-500

other

Mendel had no "true" monohybrids

Alain Corcos, and Floyd Monaghan

Department of Natural Science, Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824

Abstract

Mendel's experiments in hybridizing peas started in 1856 and ended in 1863. When one attempts to fit the described experiments—in the sequence indicated in the paper—into those limits some serious implications emerge with regard to parental types needed and the scheduling of the experiments. If Mendel had to develop the parental types of his monohybrid and dihybrid crosses and then do the experiments he described, 8 years would not have been a sufficient amount of time. We believe that his original true-breeding varieties differed in more than one trait on the basis of a logical analysis of breeding relationships. It follows first that his "monohybrid" experiments were performed with varieties in several traits but that in each offering he concentrated his attention on only one, second that he had the parental lines for his dihybrid and trihybrid experiments on hand before he started those experiments.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Bot.Home page
D. J. Fairbanks and B. Rytting
Mendelian controversies: a botanical and historical review
Am. J. Botany, May 1, 2001; 88(5): 737 - 752.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.