Talk:Gregor Mendel

Removals, Edits, and Possible misinformation

Removals

Was there a good reason to remove the stub of his biography? Dennis

Possible misinformation

Mendel sending info to Darwin

I'm pretty sure he sent a copy of his papers to Darwin. I'm pretty sure Darwin got the copy and ignored it; however, I don't believe Darwin obtain Mendel's name from references at all. --Cyberman 15:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect history linkage?

Why is Lysenko linked to Mendel? Isn't that like linking Mengele to Christiaan Barnard.

Darwin's name

Okay - so which is it? Gregor Johann Mendel or Johann Gregor Mendel? - Haukurth 2 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)

Isn't Mendel generally a Jewish name? Is he from a family of Jewish converts? (edit by 24.36.112.49)

Nothing mentions it. His parents were piss poor farmers from a willage who put their son to study priesthood to give him better life. Very detailed biography about his life was written by Vítězslav Orel (published in several languages, including English). I didn't read it but maybe it could give more info. Pavel Vozenilek 12:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Darwin's maths skills

In the article the following sentence appears. "The leading expert in heredity at this time was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who had mathematical skills that Darwin lacked and may have been able to understand the paper had he seen it. ". Is it possible that Darwin would not have been able to understand this paper. I find this hard to believe. I know this is irrelevant since we know Darwin did not see the paper but to speculate that he would not understand it seems strange. David D. (Talk) 19:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Quoting Alan Grafen, who in turn was Burkhardt and Smith (1985), page 63) quoting some of Darwin's correspondence. See Fisher the evolutionary biologist.

I attempted mathematics, and even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra. This impatience was very foolish, and in after years I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics; for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense.

Francis Galton on the other hand made major contributions to statistics and was especially concerned with heredity and biometrics. Mendel himself had a background in physics which requires some mathematical ability, that and probably influenced his mathematical approach to biology, which was unusual for its time since most of biology had not advanced beyond the "collecting specimens" stage. Ultimately it took Ronald Fisher, who was a mathematical genius, to properly understand Mendelism and Darwinism together. I suppose one could weasel it out by attributing it somewhere, I think Mendelweb has an essay to the same effect. Dunc|☺ 21:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Good stuff, that is very interesting. David D. (Talk) 21:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What's still nagging me here is the implication that Darwin would not have understood the implications of Mendel's paper. Just how much math would he have needed to understand the paper? David D. (Talk) 22:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I've seen it written that Darwin even cites Mendel's paper, and therein speculated whether Darwin had read but not understood, or indeed cited without reading! - Samsara 18:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen that. I've seen that Darwin had the papers but they were uncut. — Dunc|☺ 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I can't find it in Brown's biography of Darwin, I must conclude that it is a false rumour. - Samsara 20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect a rumor. I have heard Duncharris' version though. David D. (Talk) 23:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dates of birth & baptism

Mendel's birthdate: 20 July (baptised on 22 July): http://www.mendel-museum.org/eng/1online/room1.htm + lecture at Masaryk University in Brno OMaj 23:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

We have reputable sources for both dates. Can we resolve this is, or do we need to state both dates in the article? Please discuss here before changing things again. Awolf002 18:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The 22 July is date of his baptism. That explains, why it's often mentioned. But I really don't know where the date 20 July came from. I only consider the Mendel Museum to be credible and up-to-date source. OMaj 18:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that "on record" is the day of his baptism (July 22). Does anybody have a copy of his autobiography? Maybe that will have some info on the birthday... Awolf002 18:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Characteristics of Pea Plants

Which of the following is NOT a characteristic of the pea plants in which Mendel worked? a) They produced male and female parts. b) They exhibited blending inheritance. c) They would normally self-fertilize. d) They had many different traits and exhibited some pure-breeding varieties.

Which is it? I know it's not a or c. I'm leaning toward d, but am not sure.

You will have to research the answer to this test yourself. Wikipedia is there to help you, but it's not a forum of tutors. Awolf002 18:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Austrian?

Since he was born in Moravia, which constitute from 1019 Czech lands and he also died there, I really do not understand why he should be called "Austrian monk" with a link to Austria ... is Mahatma Gandhi a british politician? --PowerCS 12:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

He was ethnically Austrian, spoke German, and trained in Vienna. At the time the was part of the Austrian Empire and later Austria-Hungary. The Czechs have named a university after him and (I think) tried to claim him for themselves but the evidence is contrary. Gandhi (apart from being dead, btw) was Indian but also campaigned for civil rights in South Africa. That by your reasoning makes him South African? — Dunc|☺ 20:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

1)There was no "Austrian ethnicity" at that time. 2)Bohemia (including Moravia) was a multiethnic state at that time (just like Switzerland or Belgium of today), where about 1/3 of the population spoke German as their mother tongue. 3)Spending two years at the University of Vienna doesnt make one Austrian. 4)He spend virtually all his life in Moravia, which was since 11th century part of Bohemia, which was since 1804 (i.e. 12 years when Mendel was born) part of the Austrian Empire. Mendel was as Austrian, as Antonín Dvořák, František Palacký, Lajos Kossuth or Sándor Petőfi. Qertis 09:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My flipping rear-end there wasn't. I'm sure my Austrian ancestors, the Aufschlagers (and my relatives still in the Wien area), would be more than happy to explain to you that you are incorrect.

The man was of Germanic, not Slavic ancestory, so the real question is whether or not one considers him German or Austrian. He was as Czech as my Bavarian relative who enjoyed his 1938-1939 vacation in the Sudetenland. •Jim62sch• 20:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

1)We dont know whether he had any Slavic ancestors or not. 2)One can consider him Moravian (he was born in Moravia), Bohemian (Moravia was/is part of Bohemia), Austrian (Bohemia was part of the Austrian Empire) or German (he was German speaker). Puting only the third one of them into the first sentence is highly confusing, since present-day tiny Republic of Austria and former enormous Austrian Empire are completely different states and Mendel spent on the territory of present-day Austria only two or three years of his life. Qertis 12:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

i have not stated that he was a czech (despite the fact that he was born in the czech kingdom as its citizen), however i don't think it is correct to write austrian – he considered himself btw as of a german nationality. as was correctly noticed by Qertis, until second world war the population of Czech lands was of mixed nationality: czech, german (never heard about austrian, sorry) and jewish. moreover the czech kingdom was more-or-less independent despite that it was not acknowledged by crowning the austrian kings as a czech suvereign. is Franz Kafka also an austrian author? i don't think so ... --PowerCS 11:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Usually people like Mendel are described as Austrian, although at that time his ethnicity would have been described as German. He was certainly not Czech. Neither would people at that time have used this term nor did Czechs later do so. In 1945-47, all ethnic Germans, in the range of some millions, were driven out of the country for reasons of "collective guilt" for Nazi atrocities, and would Mendel have lived at that time, he would have been one of them. By the way, nobody spoke of "Austrians" at that time, and nearly all refugees settled in neighbouring Bavaria, which is part of Germany. The Austrians did not want to accept these people, because this would have posed difficult logical questions: When these people are driven out because they are Austrians, then Austrians would have been guilty of something. But as Austria was a self-declared victim of the war, this could not be true in the new ideology of the Austrian republic. So that is why Mendel, Mozart and Freud are considered Austrian (=good), Hitler, Eichmann and the refugees after 1945, however, German (=bad). In reality, the nationality and ethnicity of "Austrian" was invented in 1945. Please don't ask what nationality Kafka was. It is always difficult to project ideas onto a time where these ideas did not exist or had a different meaning.

Another dispute which hasn't come up yet (but which is beautifully suitable to excite nationalists) is why the German names for some places are not used in the article. Brno was at that time a city with a German majority and was generally known as Brünn in both in German and in English. See also Sudeten German. You will see that black/white doesn't work with matters of that complexity.

i agree that this question is quite complicated and the answer is not clear. however to solve this i suggest to change the first line to either "... was an Austria-Czech monk who ..." (like in Ernst Mach article) or to "... was a Brno monk who ..." (like in Franz Kafka one).
reacting to the previous post: are you sure that he did not consider himself as a german Czech? there were such people, especialy in time when after germanisation the majority of czech lands speaks german and not czech. therefore also Brno was called Brünn despite the fact that before and after it was always Brno. it is like after an occupation (please see [1]) anywhere else on the world. --PowerCS 15:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Simon Dach article, where Poles try to claim Dach was Polish. •Jim62sch• 20:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

While modern Austria (Deutcher Osterreich) is a post-1919 creation, the Hapsburg Empire after 1806 was called the the Austrian Empire, and after 1867 it was Austria-Hungary. So to call a German from Bohemia an "Austrian" seems reasonable. More importantly, since he is generally called an Austrian, I think we should refrain from calling him "Bohemian" unless we can find a reasonable source which supports that interpretation. Guettarda 22:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nowadays concepts of nationality simply do not fit the situation in the 19th century. I replaced the term "Austrian" by a whole sentence describing the situation. Nahabedere 11:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

i fully agree, thanx. --PowerCS 13:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I rewrote the introduction. The introduction should be precise and short, giving an idea about why this person is cited here. His place of birth and the description of where it was and where it is today can be found in the biography section. I changed "Moravia" to "Austrian Silesia", because his birthplace was not located in Moravia. "Austrian Silesia" was the part of Silesia which was not incorporated into Prussia by Frederic the Great and thus remained with Austria. It was called "Duchy of Silesia" or, in German, "Herzogtum Schlesien". I did not use the latter term however, because people would certainly not understand where this place is geographically located (as everybody would then think he would have been born in the Prussian province of Silesia, which was much bigger and more important than the small and till today rather unknown "Duchy of Silesia"). It was only later, after 1918 - that is, long after Mendel's death, that this region was incorporated into Czechoslovakia and was then known as "Moravian Silesia". Thus, I think that "Austrian Silesia" fits best. I also included the German names of Olmütz, because this was the name which was mainly known in the English-speaking world at that time. The Czech is mentioned with a link. See also here: [[2]]. Concerning his ethnicity and nationality: I did not put anything about this in the text to avoid a further heating-up of the discussion. For most people who studied his biography and the history of his region of birth, it is quite clear that Mendel himself would have considered himself both German and Austrian, but certainly not Czech. Although there was a certain mixture of populations, it was relatively clear who was Czech and who was German. In Moravia, where Mendel spent most of his time, most cities had a German majority, the Czechs often prevailed in more rural regions. The Moravian diet was later (starting 1905) elected in ethnically defined constituencies, and a lot of things were organized according to ethnicity. Unfortunately, there is not much English literature about this topic online, but see for example here: [[3]]. By the way, I hope that the other details of his life, and of course, his scientific accomplishments, receive as much attention as does the question of his ethnicity and nationality. Candidus 19:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

i have a slight impression that the terms "nationality" and "domicile" are mixed here inappropriately. but what i wanted by my first comment emphasize was that it is much more complicated than to describe him just as a "Austrian monk" since his only bound to Austria empire was (except of studies in Vienna and his language) that he was born and lived in the country occupied (in today terms) in 1620 by Austria ... btw: you all went a bit crazy, that those bloody Czechs want to claim him for themself but i have not find a single line suggesting to write something like "he was a czech monk" :P --PowerCS 12:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your use of the word "occupied" and I don't know where 1620 comes from. Silesia passes from Polish to Bohemian control in 1335, and Bohemia is under continuous Hapsburg control from 1526 - in other words, longer than Calais has been French. At the time he was born the area was considered part of the Austrian Empire. More importantly, he has always been referred to as an Austrian monk. It isn't for us to logic out what the "best" term for a person is - that constitutes OR. It isn't for us to reject established terminology because we don't like it. If you can find a modern, reputable source which argues against the old labels, then by all means go with that. I have no problem with using modern revisionist history, I just don't think that it's appropriate for us to formulate the ideas. Guettarda 13:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also favor staying with Mendel as an Austrian. This is not without problems, but it is commonly recognized, and all the alternatives will bring about even more problems. In my version, which was reverted in the meantime and then again established (not by me), I just let out the term "Austrian" because I wanted to avoid an edit war about a detail in an article. I also do not understand the word occupation. That is an anachronistic term in that context. Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia were colonized - not occupied - by German colonists starting, as far as I know, in the 12th/13th century. This was however not a national conflict, and this was not unique to that part of the world, but a very common phenomenon elsewhere. The slavic population did the same thing a few centuries earlier - the country was not empty when they arrived, there were already Celtic and Germanic tribes well before the Slavic settlement. A quarrel like this will thus always end in an infinite regress and does not help answer our question. Candidus 14:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

well, i didn't want to start any edit war i just posed a simple question. i think the whole concept of "my scientist, your scientist" is crazy, i could be childishly happy that e.g. Kurt Gödel or Sigmund Freud were born on Moravia and i have no need to claim them Czech. i was just surprised that Mendel was marked as Austrian since he spent virtually whole his life in Moravia.

concerning the "occupation" i am sorry to all those who were confused by this my hyperbole – the thing is that until 1620 the czech kingdom (despite the fact it belongs to the habsburg empire) has some level of autonomy and in those times world unique freedom of religion isued by Rudolf II. but after the Battle of White Mountain this all ended and czech lands were systematicly recatholicizied and germanizied. i called that "occupation", but that's inappropriate, it was used in those time and historically i guess common. --PowerCS 16:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

a side-remark unrelated to Mendel: I agree to recatholization (which happend throughout the empire, not only in the Czech lands), but the Habsburgs were not directly interested in germanization (their primary goal was to have power over an as-large-as possible part of Europe, whatever language they have to use for that). Of course, indirect germanization occurred as a consequence of the fact that the Czech lands were then part of an empire where a large part of the population spoke German and where German was the lingua franca. Germanization was done systematically only in the times of Marie Theresia and Josef II, but not due to some kind project to build a nation state, but simply due to the fact that they thought that systematic use of the German language would make their empire more efficient (i.e., out of power politics) Nahabedere 07:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The mistake of describing Mendel as Czech seems to be occurring with increasing frequency (most recently in the New York Review of Books, latest edition). Describing him as a German speaker from Austrian Silisea is cumbersome and so he is usually described simply as an Austrian. -- MikeKr 03:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And describing him as Austrian is as (in)correct as describing him as Czech. Nowadays simple national thinking simply does not fit the more complex historical situation Nahabedere 12:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. Calling him Austrian is an English language convention, and also a convenient shorthand for various more accurate descriptors (as I've said). Calling him Czech is simply wrong, and makes as much sense as describing East Prussians as Polish, and would be equally offensive. In fact it would make even less sense. In the English language the word "Czech" didn't gain currency until the twentieth century. Before that members of the ethnic group, of which Mendel was not a part, were referred to in English as Bohemians. So much for rhetoric about 'Nowadays simple national thinking'. MikeKr 23:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Austrian" is more than a convenient shorthand, since he was a German-speaking citizen of the "Austrian Empire". Czech would be incorrect (since he was not a Czech speaker or ethnically Czech) - it would have been like calling a Hungarian living in Vienna a German. Guettarda 23:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I would amend my post to add 'at the very least' before 'also a convenient shorthand'. -- MikeKr 23:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree: he fulfills the definition of Czech as "a person living in the Czech lands". The East Prussia-Poland analogy does not at all fit, since in the 19th century Poland did not exist, while the Czech lands, the Czech crown etc. DID exist (with the Habsburgs as kings), and btw. I am Austrian. Nahabedere 07:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I can live with the current version, which does not cite a nationality in the introduction, but explains his origins later in more detail. "Austrian" or "German" would also fit with me, "Czech" however sounds strange to me. If you apply the above definition ("a person living in the Czech lands"), you will end up in strange, anachronistic conclusions. Nobody would have called Mendel a "Czech" in the 19th century, and after World War II, all Germans (and probably also Mendel's relatives, if there were some at that time) in Czechoslovakia were as such deported. At least I am happy that the discussion so far seems to stay civilized. I think discussions like this can be very instructive, because everybody of us grew up in a specific environment with specific textbooks written in a certain national tradition, and perhaps even with familiy stories related to historic events. And the relations between Czechs, Austrians and Germans indeed were complicated, and unfortunately full of suffering. Candidus 16:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to see Nahabedere's definition of Czech as anything other than purposefully obtuse in this context, but I'll persist in assuming that the correspondent is simply mistaken, that in his or her antagonism to nationalism of any kind s/he has somehow mistakenly ended up saying exactly the same thing as Czech nationalists.

Czech nationalism says exactly the opposite: root out everything that even remotely smells German, replace all the German loan-words in Czech by Slavic ones, deny that the German-speaking population of the Czech lands had anything in common with the Czech speaking one ... Nahabedere 06:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

About the issue, rather than anyone here (necessarily): It may be useful to note that the creation of a supposed controversy where none actually exists is a classic extremist debating tactic. The American religious right's attempt to portray evolution as somehow controversial, when it is not, is the textbook example. Attempts to portray Mendel's heritage as disputed, when it is not, are getting harder to see in any other light.

The current introduction is a little convoluted. It reads as if it had been written to include the word Czech as often as possible! <g> Perhaps the following alternative would torture grammar a little less. If nobody objects, perhaps we could change it:

Mendel was born on July 22, 1822, in a German-speaking family in the village of Heinzendorf in Austrian Silesia, at that time a part of the Austrian Empire (today: Hynčice in the Czech Republic).

-- MikeKr 23:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

the current introduction does not contain the word Czech AT ALL (and neither the word Austrian or German). We should leave it at that. Nahabedere 06:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It says what you want, it's not suprising you don't want to change it. Mendel was Austrian and German, and that is neither controversial nor in dispute, except to those who want to erase the history of the Germans in Austrian Silesia. I am happy for it to be mentioned in the first line of his biography, as it now is, but ...

That line is the one I was suggesting be changed as its construction is quite clumsy. It now reads: Mendel was born on July 22, 1822, in a German-speaking family of Heinzendorf in Austrian Silesia (today: Czech Silesia, Czech Republic), which was at that time a land of the Austrian Empire (today: Hynčice (part of Vražné), district of Nový Jičín, Czech Republic).

The word Czech is indeed there three times, but it is the excess of commas and brackets I want to fix. My alternative is above, it is less convoluted but has the same meaning.

Note that the link for Austrian Silesia is now to a page on "Czech Silesia". The link should be to the Silesia page. -- MikeKr 06:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

you changed the biography, NOT the INTRODUCTION, I am fine with those changes Nahabedere 07:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

At his time the common label was "Czech Germans", "Deutschboehme", "cessti Nemci", one of two major ethnics in Czech lands. Austrian meant then Lower/Upper Austria inhabitant. Biographies of Mendel exist and they could answer this question better. Pavel Vozenilek 12:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)