Why didn't Mendel discover autosomal linkage in peas?

Doug Eernisse Doug_Ee at um.cc.umich.edu
Wed Mar 16 14:26:37 EST 1994

In article <763824005snz at zenecabp.demon.co.uk> 
Stephen J Bungard, sbungard at zenecabp.demon.co.uk writes:
>I thought his results were too good to be true statistically, according to
>modern analysis.  Further, I thought it had been suggested that this was 
>likely to be because his assistant(s) knew what the boss wanted and made 
>sure he got these results.  Can anybody confirm or refute (preferably with a
>reference)?   Thanks,

The book I mentioned has a large appendix on this subject, but focusing
more on whether the variation observed was as should be expected.
They come out very strongly in support of Mendel as a careful scientist,
as examined with the chi-square test (the test that the master statistician,
R. A. Fisher, used to question Mendel's results in 1936). Their position
is that his reputation has been restored in the last decade or two.
I recommend their book highly.

My question has more to do with me not really understanding how frequent
crossing over must occur.

In article <2m5sro$30r at vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> Marty Sachs, msachs at uiuc.edu writes:
>As I understand it, two of the traits that Mendel chose to study are 'linked',
>but more than 50 map units apart (so they appeared to be 'unlinked').  

I didn't realize that linkage could be so easily disrupted.


More information about the Plantbio mailing list