ReviewHeredity2020
Mendel and Darwin: untangling a persistent enigma.
Review in Heredity, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Opinion: The Key Steps in the Origin of Life to the Formation of the Eukaryotic Cell.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- (Patho)Physiology of Glycosylphosphatidylinositol-Anchored Proteins II: Intercellular Transfer of Matter (Inheritance?) That Matters.Biomolecules · 2023Review
- Gregor Johann Mendel: From peasant to priest, pedagogue, and prelate.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Mendel and Darwin.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Themes of Biological Inheritance in Early Nineteenth Century Sheep Breeding as Revealed by J. M. Ehrenfels.Genes · 2022Review
- Demystifying the mythical Mendel: a biographical review.Heredity · 2022Review
- Genetics Matters: Voyaging from the Past into the Future of Humanity and Sustainability.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- A Conversation with Darwin on Man Revisited: 150 Years to The Descent of Man.Journal of the history of biology · 2022Article
- Safe Carrying of Heavy Infants Together With Hair Properties Explain Human Evolution.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mendel and Darwin were contemporaries, with much overlap in their scientifically productive years. Available evidence shows that Mendel knew much about Darwin, whereas Darwin knew nothing of Mendel. Because of the fragmentary nature of this evidence, published inferences regarding Mendel's views on Darwinian evolution are contradictory and enigmatic, with claims ranging from enthusiastic acceptance to outright rejection. The objective of this review is to examine evidence from Mendel's published and private writings on evolution and Darwin, and the influence of the scientific environment in which he was immersed. Much of this evidence lies in Mendel's handwritten annotations in his copies of Darwin's books, which this review scrutinises in detail. Darwin's writings directly influenced Mendel's classic 1866 paper, and his letters to Nägeli. He commended and criticised Darwin on specific issues pertinent to his research, including the provisional hypothesis of pangenesis, the role of pollen in fertilisation, and the influence of "conditions of life" on heritable variation. In his final letter to Nägeli, Mendel proposed a Darwinian scenario for natural selection using the same German term for "struggle for existence" as in his copies of Darwin's books. His published and private scientific writings are entirely objective, devoid of polemics or religious allusions, and address evolutionary questions in a manner consistent with that of his scientific contemporaries. The image that emerges of Mendel is of a meticulous scientist who accepted the tenets of Darwinian evolution, while privately pinpointing aspects of Darwin's views of inheritance that were not supported by Mendel's own experiments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.