DOCSLIB.ORG

15/24/56 Liberal Arts and Sciences Genetics and Development

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
15/24/56 Liberal Arts and Sciences Genetics and Development 15/24/56 Liberal Arts and Sciences Genetics and Development Department Natural History Museum Iltis Mendelania Collection, 1841-1984 Item No Held Description Box Transfer lists: a) “Gregor Mendel Museum, Fredericksburg, 1 Virgina Shelf List” (original ribbon-copy typescript inventory of Iltis’ Mendel Collection, with pencil, pen, and marker annotations presumably added by the Natural History Museum). b) handwritten list (8 pages) of original Mendel “relics” and other Mendel-related items as prepared by the Natural History Museum some time after the 1961 acquisition of the Mendel clock. c) spreadsheet inventory prepared by the University Archives on its acquisition of the collection in 2005 1 Mendel’s birth place in Heinzendorf, Silesia [caption only] 1 The parents consent for Mendel to be priest 2 T 1 Photographic facsimile Mendel’s sisters and his brother-in-law 3 T 1 Photograph and caption Pedigree of Johann Gregor Mendel 4 T 5 Display Board, Hugo Iltis and Jo Anne Campbell 5 T The Common Ancestors of Mendel and Mrs. Hugo Iltis 1 Gregor Mendel’s home country 6 T 5 Display Board The monastery and the church in Altbrünn 7 T 5 Photograph, negative, and caption The convent hall of the monastery, Brünn 8 T 1 Photograph, negative, and caption Mendel’s autobiography, 9 T 7 Photograph of manuscript of last page Autobiography 10 T 5 Photograph of third page Brünn, Spielberg and Franzensberg 11 T 1 Photograph, negative, and caption Gregor Mendel, oil portrait by J.O. Flatter, London, 12 T UAR 49-1 Negative in Box 1 Professor Portrait (“life size”) 13 T 7 Retouched photograph The “handsome” portrait 14 T 5 Photographs and negative T The members of the convent of the Augustines, Brünn 1862 1 15 Caption only. Fredericksburg 1950 checklist indicates “on exhibit.” The “Fuchsia Portrait” 16 T 1 Photographs, negative, and caption Mendel in 1847 17 T 1 Photograph and caption. 15/24/56 2 Brünn Committee of Natural Science, 1862 18 T 1 Photograph and caption The “Distorted” Photo of Mendel in 1867 19 missing 1 Caption only. Mendel and the faculty of the Realschule 20 T 5 Photograph, copy of “original” See 171 for “original” print. The small prelate portrait, 1882 21 T 5 Photograph and negative The great prelate portrait 22 T 5 Photographs and negative T Mendel’s experimental garden 23 1 Negative and caption First page of Mendel’s manuscript of “Versuche über Pflanzen- 24 T Hybriden” 5 Photograph Carl Nägeli 25 T 1 Photograph and caption Nägeli’s letter of reply to Mendel’s first letter, 1867 26 T 1 Photographic facsimile of a single page and caption. Mendel’s apiary 27 T 5 Photograph Mendel’s Apiary Renovated, ca. 1940 28 T 1 Photograph, negative, and caption. Cage for bee crossing constructed by Mendel 29 T 1 Photograph and caption. Mendel’s observations of the sun spots 30 T 1 Photographic facsimile and caption. Mendel’s letter of protest regarding the tax bill 31 T 1 Photographic facsimile, negative, and caption. Mendel’s telescope 32 T 1 Photograph, negative, and caption. Mendel’s microscope 33 T 1 Photograph and caption. Rudolph Jakob Camerarius 1665-1721 34 T Photograph and caption. 1 Cotton Mather, 1663-1728 35 T 1 Photograph and caption. Paul Dudley, 1675-1751 36 T 1 Photograph and caption. Thomas Andrew Knight, 1759-1838 37 T 1 Photograph and caption. Charles Naudin, 1815-1899 38 T 1 Photograph and caption. William Spillman, 1863-1931 39 T 1 Photograph, negative, and caption. 15/24/56 3 Cotton Mather’s letter to James Petiver, 1716, photostat presented 40 T to the Mendel Museum by Prof. Conway Zirkle of the University 1 of Pennsylvania, December 22, 1939 41 missing The pea flower Mendel’s original experiment with the pea: Smooth x wrinkled, 42 1 Caption and digital photograph taken 7 July 2005 43 The F2 hybrid [caption only] 1 44 Mendel’s original exp. with pea: Yellow x green [caption only] 1 Mendel’s original exp. with pea: Colored seed coat x white 45 1 [caption only] Mendel’s Original Experiments with the Pea. Exhibit display board prepared by Hugo Iltis, ca. 1943. Discarded 46 July 2005. 1 Digital photograph taken 7 July 2005. Digital photograph taken 7 July 2005 Mendel’s original exp. with pea: the difference in color of the 47 missing unripe pod 48 missing Mendel’s original exp. with pea: Axial and terminal inflorescence 49 missing Mendel’s original exp. with pea: Tall x dwarf plants 50 missing Mendel’s seven monohybrid crossings: survey Mendel’s original exp. with pea: dihybrids: yellow smooth x 51 1 green wrinkled [caption only] Explanation of Mendel’s dihybrid crossing by his theory (Modern 52 missing checker board method) 53 missing Mendel’s backcross experiments proving his theory Checker board showing Mendel’s theory and its proof by the 54 1 back-cross experiments with the pea [caption only] Fundamentals of Mendelism 55 T 7 Display Board, Hugo Iltis and Wilma Johnston, 1947 The Numerical Ratio and the Various Kinds of Gametes, Zygotes 56 T and Individuals in the F2 Generation of Mendelian Crossing 7 Display Board, Hugo Iltis and Ruth Snell, 1946 Mendel’s Pea Crossings I: Survey and Discussion 57 T 7 Display Board, Hugo Iltis and Margery Vreins, 1946 58 missing Mendel’s pea crossing II The Reasons for Mendel’s success 59 T 7 Display Board, Hugo Iltis and Jo Hutton, 1947 60 Mendel’s bean crossings and his discovery of the multiple factor 61 Mendel’s hawkweed crossings T The experimental garden in Brünn, 1938 62 1 Photograph, negative, and caption The Mendel Memorial in Brünn 63 T 5 Photograph The Mendel Memorial, Brünn, 64 T 1 Photograph and negative (8" x 10") 64 T Mendel Memorial in Brünn, oversize photograph UAR 49-1 15/24/56 4 Prof. Baur, Berlin, speaking on the occassion of the International 65 T Gregor Mendel Centennial in Brünn, Sept. 1922 5 Photographs and negative Gregor Mendel Plaque by Theodor Charlemont of Vienna, 1910 66 T 8 Framed plaster (?) plaque. Part of the Mendel Museum in the monastery Brünn 67 T 1 Photograph “The New World Honors Mendel” Hand lettered and painted scroll presented to the American 68 T Genetics Society by the scientists of the New World at the Golden 7 Jubilee meeting of the Genetics Society of America at Columbus, Ohio, September 12, 1950 [caption in Box 1] Carl W. Eichling, New Orleans, La., the only American who 69 T knew Mendel personally. 1 Photograph, negative, and caption. Hugo de Vries 70 T 1 Photograph and caption Carl Correns 71 T 1 Photograph and caption. Erich Tschermak 72 T 1 Photograph and caption. Original letter of August Weisman to Hugo Iltis (1906) 73 T 1 Caption and transcription Original letters of Hugo de Vries (1911, 1922) of the Hortus 74 T 1 Botanicus, Amsterdam 75 T Original letter of Carl Correns to Hugo Iltis (1907) 1 T Two original letters of Erich Tschermak to Hugo Iltis, Nov. 10, 76 1 1905 and July (?) 8, 1906 77 missing The chromosome mechanism Theodor Boveri 78 T 1 Photograph and caption Oscar Hertwig 79 T 1 Photograph August Weismann 80 T 1 Photograph and caption Fertilization. Round-worm Ascaris (Th. Boveri) 81 T 5 Display Board Mitosis. Consecutive stages of the division of a cell and its 82 T nucleus in the root of the onion. 5 Display Board T Mitosis in Animals and Plants 83 5 Display Board T Janssen’s Chiasmatypy Hypothesis 84 7 Display Board, Hugo Iltis and Mary Ann Hellberg, 1951 T Cross-over Frequency and Gene Distance: The Mapping of the 85 Genes 7 Display Board, Hugo Iltis and Mary Ann Hellberg, 1951 15/24/56 5 86 missing Inheritance and determination of sex in Drosophilia 87 missing Sex linkage and sex determination in Drosophilia 88 missing The story of the fruit-fly 89 missing Chromosome maps of drosophila melanogaster Lethal genes. Cuénot’s yellow mice. Exhibit display board 90 prepared by Hugo Iltis, ca. 1943. Digital photograph taken 7 July 2005 91 missing Interaction of genes. Cuénot’s mice crossings Lang’s Snail Crossings. Exhibit display board prepared by Hugo 92 Iltis, ca. 1943. Original discarded, July 2005. 1 Digital photograph taken 7 July 2005 93 missing Rattle snakes, color variation 94 missing Corn, its ancestors and its varieties 95 missing Pollination and fertilization of corn. The methods of corn crossing 96 missing The formation of Xenia 97 missing Corn, character and genes 98 missing Corn crossing. Monohybrid Aleuron color inheritance 99 missing Pericarp inheritance in corn 100 missing Dihybrid corn crossing 101 missing Corn crossing. Modified ratio. Two pairs of genes interacting 102 missing Linkage and crossing-over in corn 103 missing How hybrid corn is produced 104 missing Hybrid corn, double cross 105 T Honor roll of corn, captioned portrait photographs, (2 folders) 1 106 missing Chromosomes and genes in corn 107 missing The origin and ancestry of corn The Increase in the Acreage Planted with Hybrid Corn in the USA 108 T During the Period of 1940 to 1946 5 Display Board, Hugo Iltis and Jo Alys Downs 109 missing America grows corn 110 missing How hybrid chickens are produced Four ways hybrid chickens are produced by Hy Line Poultry 111 T UAR 49-1 Farms Sex Cells and Chromosomes of Man: Sex determination by sex 112 T chromosomes 67 Display Board, Hugo Iltis and Margery Vriens, 1947 Boy or girl? The solved riddle of sex determination 113 T 7 Display Board, Hugo Iltis and Ruth Snell, 1947 114 T Identical and fraternal twins UAR 49-2 115 T Multiple birth: Quadruplets and Quintuplets UAR 49-2 116 missing Fraternal and identical twins and how they originate 117 missing The three cases of inheritance of hemophilia The ancestry of Queen Elizabeth of England and Philipp, Duke of 118 missing Edinbourgh 15/24/56 6 119 missing Hemophilia in the royal families of Europe 120 T The Ptolemies, kings of Egypt UAR 49-1 121 missing Brachydactyly 122 missing Inheritance of missing incisors William Bateson 123 T 2 Photograph and caption Charles Davenport 124 T 2 Photograph and caption H.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Hereditary Statistics of Hugo De Vries
    Acta Bot. Neerl. 47(4), December 1998, p. 427—463 The Hereditary Statistics of Hugo de Vries Erik Zevenhuizen Institute for Systematics and Population Biology, Faculty of Biology, University of Amsterdam, Kruislaan 318, 1098 SM Amsterdam, The Netherlands CONTENTS Introduction 427 The theory of pangenesis 429 The use of statistics 432 The laws of chance 435 The Veronica-note: the 5/16-law 439 The Veronica-note: the 1.2.1-law 446 The Aster-note 449 Conclusion: in search of the laws of nature 452 Keywords: Hugo de Vries, Mendel’s laws, mutation theory, pangenesis. INTRODUCTION de Vries is remembered the first of three botanists in Today, Hugo chiefly as who, 1900, publicly announced that they had discovered what we now call the laws of Mendel. All three maintainedthat they had foundthe laws on their own and that, at the moment they did their discovery, they had been completely unaware of the fact that the Austrian amateur botanist Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) had published similar conclusions already in 1866. Whereas his contributions to the development of evolutionary thought are De Vries is credited in generally unappreciated or simply unknown, many surveys on the history of genetics for his rediscovery of Mendel’s laws. It is generally accepted that, together with his two fellow-rediscoverers, Carl Correns from Tubingen and Erich von Tschermak-Seysenegg from Vienna, De Vries made these basic rules of genetics scientific widely known to the world. The year 1900 can be considered as the year of birth of modern genetics, and Hugo de Vries as one of the founders of the discipline.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's Influence on Mendel: Evidence from a New Translation Of
    | PERSPECTIVES Darwin’sInfluence on Mendel: Evidence from a New Translation of Mendel’s Paper Daniel J. Fairbanks*,1 and Scott Abbott† *Department of Biology and †Department of Integrated Studies, Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah 84058 ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7422-0549 (D.J.F.) ABSTRACT Gregor Mendel’s classic paper, Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden (Experiments on Plant Hybrids), was published in 1866, hence 2016 is its sesquicentennial. Mendel completed his experiments in 1863 and shortly thereafter began compiling the results and writing his paper, which he presented in meetings of the Natural Science Society in Brünn in February and March of 1865. Mendel owned a personal copy of Darwin’s Origin of Species, a German translation published in 1863, and it contains his marginalia. Its publication date indicates that Mendel’s study of Darwin’s book could have had no influence while he was conducting his experiments but its publication date coincided with the period of time when he was preparing his paper, making it possible that Darwin’s writings influenced Mendel’s interpretations and theory. Based on this premise, we prepared a Darwinized English translation of Mendel’s paper by comparing German terms Mendel employed with the same terms in the German translation of Origin of Species in his possession, then using Darwin’s counterpart English words and phrases as much as possible in our translation. We found a substantially higher use of these terms in the final two (10th and 11th) sections of Mendel’s paper, particularly in one key paragraph, where Mendel reflects on evolutionary issues, providing strong evidence of Darwin’sinfluence on Mendel.
    [Show full text]
  • Tutorial: Mendelian Genetics
    Mendelian Genetics Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Heredity Before Mendel ..................................................................................................... 2 Mendel and the Laws of Heredity....................................................................................... 4 The “Rediscovery” of Mendel ............................................................................................. 7 The Misuse of Mendel ........................................................................................................ 8 Mendel in the Modern World ........................................................................................... 10 References and Resources ................................................................................................ 10 Supplemental Material ..................................................................................................... 11 Introduction Today, when the word “genetics” is mentioned the mind is at once occupied with terms like cloning, PCR, the genome project, and genomics. Just a few decades ago, however, the word genetics conjured up a very different set of terms including crossing, segregation, Punnett square, and binomial expansion. It is not that these terms have disappeared or have been replaced since, it is, rather, that genetics moved full force into the molecular era in the late 1970s and, in the beginning of the twenty-first century,
    [Show full text]
  • The Full Breadth of Mendel's Genetics
    | PERSPECTIVES The Full Breadth of Mendel’s Genetics Peter J. van Dijk*,1 and T. H. Noel Ellis *Keygene N.V., 6708 PW Wageningen, The Netherlands ABSTRACT Gregor Mendel’s “Experiments on Plant Hybrids” (1865/1866), published 150 years ago, is without doubt one of the most brilliant works in biology. Curiously, Mendel’s later studies on Hieracium (hawkweed) are usually seen as a frustrating failure, because it is assumed that they were intended to confirm the segregation ratios he found in Pisum. Had this been his intention, such a confirmation would have failed, since, unknown to Mendel, Hieracium species mostly reproduce by means of clonal seeds (apomixis). Here we show that this assumption arises from a misunderstanding that could be explained by a missing page in Mendel’s first letter to Carl Nägeli. Mendel’s writings clearly indicate his interest in “constant hybrids,” hybrids which do not segregate, and which were “essentially different” from “variable hybrids” such as in Pisum.AfterthePisum studies, Mendel worked mainly on Hieracium for 7 years where he found constant hybrids and some great surprises. He also continued to explore variable hybrids; both variable and constant hybrids were of interest to Mendel with respect to inheritance and to species evolution. Mendel considered that their similarities and differences might provide deep insights and that their differing behaviors were “individual manifestations of a higher more fundamental law.” KEYWORDS Gregor Mendel; genetics; Hieracium; constant hybrids; apomixis The publication of Mendel’s letters to Carl Nägeli by several fertile hybrids will bloom for the first time. They Correns in 1905 was a service to genetics which seems not should be very numerous and I only hope that they repay to have been fully appreciated by most of those who have since the yearning [Sehnsucht!] with which I await them with ’ written accounts of Mendel slifeandwork(MannLesley much information concerning their life histories.” (quoted 1927).
    [Show full text]
  • Erwin Baur Or Carl Correns: Who Really Created the Theory of Plastid Inheritance?
    Erwin Baur or Carl Correns: Who Really Created the Theory of Plastid Inheritance? Rudolf Hagemann Historical reviews of the field of non-Mendelian genetics and many other publica- tions credit Erwin Baur and Carl Correns equally for the development of the theory of plastid inheritance. However, a study of the original literature indicates that this conclusion is not correct. Analysis of the relevant articles leads to the conclusion that Baur alone deserves credit for the theory of plastid inheritance. In his classic article on the inheritance properties of white-margined Pelargonium plants, Baur (1909) stated: (1) The plastids are carriers of hereditary factors which are able to mutate. (2) In variegated plants, random sorting-out of plastids is taking place. (3) The genetic results indicate a biparental inheritance of plastids by egg cells and sperm cells in Pelargonium. By contrast, Correns held the view that in variegated plants there is a maternally transmitted labile state of the cytoplasm which switches either to a permanently ‘‘healthy’’ state (allowing the ‘‘indifferent’’ plastids to be- come green chloroplasts) or to a permanently ‘‘diseased, ill’’ cytoplasmic state (causing white plastids and cells). Otto Renner supported Baur’s theory and worked out important characteristics of plastid inheritance in the genus Oenothera. In the 1930s Renner reported many more observations, which established plastid inher- itance as a widely accepted genetic theory. Plastid Genetics as an Integral basic research, plastids have also attract- Part of Current Genetic Research ed the attention of plant biotechnologists due to the recent development of trans- Research involving plastid as well as mi- formation technologies for higher plant tochondrial genetics has contributed to chloroplasts, which enable the expression recent advances in both basic and applied of foreign genes in the plastid compart- research.
    [Show full text]
  • Gregor J. Mendel – Genetics Founding Father
    Review Czech J. Genet. Plant Breed., 50, 2014 (2): 43–51 Gregor J. Mendel – Genetics Founding Father Erik SCHWARZBACH 1, Petr SMÝKAL2, Ondřej DOSTÁL3, Michaela JARKOVSKÁ3 and Simona VALOVÁ4 1Miroslav, Czech Republic; 2Faculty of Science, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic; 3Mendel Museum and 4Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic Abstract Schwarzbach E., Smýkal P., Dostál O., Jarkovská M., Valová S. (2014): Gregor J. Mendel – genetics found- ing father. Czech. J. Genet. Plant Breed., 50: 43–51. Mendel’s impact on science is overwhelming. Although based on the number of scientific papers he published he might be considered a meteorologist, his most significant contribution is his study of plant hybrids. This single work puts Mendel on a par with Darwin’s evolutionary theory and establishes him firmly in the frame of today’s biology. The aim of this article is to introduce the personality of Gregor Johann Mendel, focussing not just on his scientific work, but also on his background and what or who influenced him. To understand Mendel’s use of quantification and mathematical analysis of obtained results, representing a radical departure from methods of his predecessors, it is important to know something about their arguments, beliefs, and practices. He designed his experiments to answer a long standing question of hybridization, not inheritance as we perceive it today, since the science of genetics was born considerably later. He studied many genera of plants, but his famous research was on garden peas. To choose a single species for his crosses was fundamental to his success, but also fuelled most of criticism at the time he presented his results.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Genetics Problems and Chi Square
    The Chi-square Test and Genetics 1. In fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster), wild type flies are normal looking and have no obvious mutations. Wild type traits tend to be dominant to many of the mutations that affect fruit flies. One recessive mutation in particular causes a fly to be born with white eyes. In 1910, Thomas Hunt Morgan noticed a white-eyed male fly in his experimental fly population. He bred this fly to several wild type females and 1,237 flies were produced in the F1 generation. Male and female flies were roughly in equal proportions, and all flies had normal red eyes. Morgan then allowed the F1 to mate with each other to produce the F2 generation. The F2 generation had mostly red-eyed flies, and some white-eyed flies, but all the white-eyes flies were males. a. Use Punnett squares to show how the white eye mutation was being passed on in the flies. b. A student performed these crosses and, in the F2 generation, counted 824 flies with the wild phenotype (red eyes) and 297 flies with the white eye phenotype. Perform a Chi- square test to test the null hypothesis (H0) that the observed result of the crosses is statistically indistinguishable from the expected result. Category Observed Expected Expected (O-E)2/E proportion Red eyed 824 3/4 840.75 0.33 White eyed 297 1/4 280.25 1.01 Total 1121 S c2 = 1.34 The critical value for 2 categories at 0.05 is 3.84. Because 1.34 is less than this, the student accepts the null hypothesis (H0) that there is no statistically significant difference between the observed and expected result.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mendelian and Non-Mendelian Origins of Genetics
    The Mendelian and Non-Mendelian Origins of Genetics Sander Gliboff * Abstract: The story of Gregor Mendel’s long neglect and rediscovery has been criticized for taking Mendel’s paper out of context, both in 1865, when he presented it to the Naturalists’ Society in Brno, and in 1900, when it became a cornerstone of genetics. But what are the proper contexts? Here a case is made for reading Mendel’s paper, in both time periods, as part of a large body of nineteenth-century literature on practical plant- and animal breeding and experimental hybridization. This literature contained a confus- ing and contradictory assortment of observations on heredity and prelimi- nary laws and generalizations, some in line with Mendel’s, but most not. In 1865, Mendel’s paper was intended as a modest attempt to begin to bring order to this chaos, but there was little reason to celebrate it as a break- through: too many “non-Mendelian” cases were known. After 1900, this literature was, in a sense, rediscovered along with Mendel, and it then played a dual role. For critics like W.F.R. Weldon, the non-Mendelian cases falsified Mendel’s laws. But for Mendel’s three co-rediscoverers, William Bateson, and others, they represented challenges to be met within a research program that would modify and extend Mendel’s system and establish a new scientific discipline. Key-words: history of genetics; Mendel, Gregor; rediscovery of Mendel; Bateson, William; Weldon, W. F. R; de Vries, Hugo; Correns, Carl; Tschermak, Erich; plant breeding; hybridization As origens mendelianas e não-mendelianas da Genética Resumo: A história da longa negligência e redescoberta de Gregor Mendel tem sido criticada por tirar Mendel de seu contexto, tanto em 1865, quando * Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Indiana University.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power Another Way, by Finding Evidence for Dr Sapp Attributes This to the Different I.R.S
    _N_A_TU_R_E__ vo_L_._3_31_J_s_FE_B_R_u_A_R_Y_1_9s_s __________________ 800KREVIEVVS---------------------------------------s7_3 undermine the chromosomal monopoly in heredity received scant consideration. Nuclear power another way, by finding evidence for Dr Sapp attributes this to the different I.R.S. Fincham genetic determinants in the cytoplasm. styles of science administration in the two Dr Jan Sapp's history of these doubts countries; the American 'free market' and disputes makes interesting and pro­ pulled research into the most readily Beyond the Gene: Cytoplasmic Inheritance vocative reading. The interest comes exploitable areas, whereas in the more and the Struggle for Authority in Genetics. largely from extensive and well-selected professorially directed German system By Jan Sapp. Oxford University Press: quotations from the publications and (in founder effects were of more importance. 1987. Pp.266. $35, £32.50. some cases) the personal correspondence According to Dr Sapp, the American of some of the main protagonists. The verdict on the German work was "not GENETICISTS have always tended to believe provocation, at least for this reviewer, proven". But his quotations from Ameri­ that organisms are determined by genes comes from the author's determination to can textbooks of the period show a gen­ located on chromosomes in the cell explain the development of genetics in eral, if tentative, acceptance of a role nucleus. Until the advent of gene cloning, terms of struggles for authority and power for plastids in heredity, an acceptance this belief depended entirely on the between a Mendelian orthodoxy and encouraged, as he points out, by the fact Mendelian behaviour of nearly all varia­ cytoplasmic heresy. that they were visible structures with tion that could be inherited through sexual The three central chapters are mainly apparent continuity through cell division.
    [Show full text]
  • Extranuclear Inheritance
    Extranuclear Inheritance fatchiyah.lecture.ub.ac.id Terms Defined Cytoplasmic inheritance- Transmission of heredity traits through factors in the cytoplasm. Uniparental inheritance- Transmission of heredity traits through only one parent. •maternal inheritance- Uniparental transmission of heredity traits through the mother. •paternal inheritance- Uniparental transmission of heredity traits through the father. „ Extranuclear inheritance refers to inheritance patterns involving genetic material outside the nucleus „ The two most mportant examples are due to genetic material within organelles Mitochondria and chloroplasts „ These organelles are found in the cytoplasm „ Therefore, extranuclear inheritance is also termed cytoplasmic inheritance EXTRANUCLEAR INHERITANCE Mendelian inheritance patterns involve genes that Directly influence the outcome of an organism’s traits and Obey Mendel’s laws Most genes in eukaryotic species follow a Mendelian pattern of inheritance However, there are many that don’t Indeed, linkage which we considered in the last two lectures follows non-Mendelian inheritance Additional patterns of inheritance that deviate from a Mendelian pattern include: Maternal effect and epigenetic inheritance Involve genes in the nucleus Extranuclear inheritance Involves genes in organelles other than the nucleus 1. Mitochondria 2. Chloroplasts 3. plasmid Maternal effect refers to an inheritance pattern for certain nuclear genes in which the genotype of the mother directly determines the phenotype of her offspring
    [Show full text]
  • Chromosomal Theory of Inheritance Long Before Chromosomes Were
    Course Code-EDU161 and Course Name:Botany Chromosomal Theory of Inheritance Long before chromosomes were visualized under a microscope, the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel, began studying heredity in 1843. With the improvement of microscopic techniques during the late 1800s, cell biologists could stain and visualize subcellular structures with dyes and observe their actions during cell division and meiosis. With each mitotic division, chromosomes replicated, condensed from an amorphous (no constant shape) nuclear mass into distinct X-shaped bodies (pairs of identical sister chromatids), and migrated to separate cellular poles. Chromosomal Theory Of Inheritance The speculation that chromosomes might be the key to understanding heredity led several scientists to examine Mendel‘s publications and re-evaluate his model in terms of the behavior of chromosomes during mitosis and meiosis. In 1902, Theodor Boveri observed that proper embryonic development of sea urchins does not occur unless chromosomes are present. That same year, Walter Sutton observed the separation of chromosomes into daughter cells during meiosis (Figure). Together, these observations led to the development of the Chromosomal Theory of Inheritance, which identified chromosomes as the genetic material responsible for Mendelian inheritance. (a) Walter Sutton and (b) Theodor Boveri are credited with developing the Chromosomal Theory of Inheritance, which states that chromosomes carry the unit of heredity (genes). The Chromosomal Theory of Inheritance was consistent with Mendel‘s laws and was supported by the following observations: During meiosis, homologous chromosome pairs migrate as discrete structures that are independent of other chromosome pairs. The sorting of chromosomes from each homologous pair into pre-gametes appears to be random.
    [Show full text]
  • Exemplarising the Origin of a Science
    Exemplarising the Origin of a Science A Path to Genetics: From Mendel to Bateson Yafeng Shan Doctor of Philosophy University College London I, Yafeng Shan, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 2 Acknowledgement First of all, I would like to thank my primary supervisor, Emma Tobin, without whom the thesis may have never been close to completion. It has been a great fortune to work under Emma’s supervision in the past three years, not only as a PhD student, but also as a teaching assistant. I benefit so much from her insightful and helpful comments on my thesis writing, as well as her support and advice on my academic life. For me, Emma is much more than a PhD supervisor. I am also extremely grateful to my secondary supervisor, Brendan Clarke, for his critical comments on my writings and useful advice on my job application during the different stages, especially for his suggestion, which encouraged me to look for a case study from the history of biology. I have a great time at UCL, especially STS department. I owe a lot to the support of the STS community, including my PhD colleagues, faculty members, and honourary fellows. I also benefit enormously from the discussions in the reading groups held around UCL, especially the Metaphysical and Scientific Club and the Centre on History of Evolutionary Studies. Special thanks to Jon Agar, Chiara Ambrosio, Jonathan Everett, Toby Friend, Andy Gregory, Andy Hammond, Frank James, Julia Sanchez-Dorado, and Noberto Serpente.
    [Show full text]