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 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 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 1986:77(4):283-283
© 1986 The American Genetic Association 77:283

correction

Correction: Chi-square and Mendel's experiments

ALAIN CORCOS, and FLOYD MONAGHAN

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

Abstract

We thank Dr. Franz Weiling for pointing out that in our article, "Chi-square and Mendel's Experiments, Where is the Bias?," (J. Hered. 76:307–309. 1985) the degrees of freedom for the testcross experiments of Mendel are 15, not 9. This gives a probability above 99.5 percent. The probability is so high that one must conclude that the data are biased in favor of the hypothesis, and therefore are not a true test of the hypothesis. In this case, Mendel, knowing what to expect, might not have been as careful as he should have been in scoring phenotypes.

Professor Weiling also points out that in our Table IV the number of plants with yellow cotyledons obtained by Tschermak was 3580, not 3850. This unfortunate transposition of numbers led us to get too high a chi-square value. It should be 0.07 rather than 5.17 (0.90 << P << 0.95). Checking our figures we found another transposition. This one concerns Bateson's data on pea shape. The value should be 3452 rather than 3542. The chi-square value is thus 0.09 (0.70 << P << 0.80). These low chi-square values support even better our statement that if Mendel was biased, so were all the other workers.

The above errors so thoughtfully pointed out by Dr. Weiling, with the possible exception of the testcross data, in no way alter our conclusions.


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




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.