Gregor Johann Mendel (Czech: Řehoř Jan Mendel; 20 July 1822
– 6 January 1884) (English: /ˈmɛndəl/) was a scientist,
Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, Margraviate
of Moravia. Mendel was born in a German-speaking family in the
Silesian part of the
Austrian Empire (today's Czech Republic) and
gained posthumous recognition as the founder of the modern science of
genetics. Though farmers had known for millennia that crossbreeding of
animals and plants could favor certain desirable traits, Mendel's pea
plant experiments conducted between 1856 and 1863 established many of
the rules of heredity, now referred to as the laws of Mendelian
Mendel worked with seven characteristics of pea plants: plant height,
pod shape and color, seed shape and color, and flower position and
color. Taking seed color as an example, Mendel showed that when a
true-breeding yellow pea and a true-breeding green pea were cross-bred
their offspring always produced yellow seeds. However, in the next
generation, the green peas reappeared at a ratio of 1 green to 3
yellow. To explain this phenomenon, Mendel coined the terms
“recessive” and “dominant” in reference to certain traits. (In
the preceding example, the green trait, which seems to have vanished
in the first filial generation, is recessive and the yellow is
dominant.) He published his work in 1866, demonstrating the actions of
invisible “factors”—now called genes—in predictably
determining the traits of an organism.
The profound significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until
the turn of the 20th century (more than three decades later) with the
rediscovery of his laws. Erich von Tschermak, Hugo de Vries, Carl
William Jasper Spillman independently verified several of
Mendel's experimental findings, ushering in the modern age of
1 Life and career
2.1 Experiments on plant hybridization
2.1.1 Initial reception of Mendel's work
2.2 Other experiments
3 Rediscovery of Mendel's work
4 The Mendelian Paradox
5 See also
8 Further reading
9 External links
Life and career
Mendel was born into a German-speaking family in Hynčice (Heinzendorf
bei Odrau in German), at the Moravian-Silesian border, Austrian Empire
(now a part of the Czech Republic). He was the son of Anton and
Rosine (Schwirtlich) Mendel, and had one older sister, Veronika, and
one younger, Theresia. They lived and worked on a farm which had been
owned by the Mendel family for at least 130 years. During his
childhood, Mendel worked as a gardener and studied beekeeping. As a
young man, he attended gymnasium in
Opava (called Troppau in German).
He had to take four months off during his gymnasium studies due to
illness. From 1840 to 1843, he studied practical and theoretical
philosophy and physics at the Philosophical Institute of the
University of Olomouc, taking another year off because of illness. He
also struggled financially to pay for his studies, and Theresia gave
him her dowry. Later he helped support her three sons, two of whom
He became a friar in part because it enabled him to obtain an
education without having to pay for it himself. As the son of a
struggling farmer, the monastic life, in his words, spared him the
"perpetual anxiety about a means of livelihood." He was given the
name Gregor (Řehoř in Czech) when he joined the Augustinian
When Mendel entered the Faculty of Philosophy, the Department of
Natural History and Agriculture was headed by
Johann Karl Nestler who
conducted extensive research of hereditary traits of plants and
animals, especially sheep. Upon recommendation of his physics teacher
Friedrich Franz, Mendel entered the Augustinian St Thomas's Abbey
Brno (called Brünn in German) and began his training as a priest.
Born Johann Mendel, he took the name Gregor upon entering religious
life. Mendel worked as a substitute high school teacher. In 1850, he
failed the oral part, the last of three parts, of his exams to become
a certified high school teacher. In 1851, he was sent to the
University of Vienna
University of Vienna to study under the sponsorship of
Abbot C. F.
Napp so that he could get more formal education. At Vienna, his
professor of physics was Christian Doppler. Mendel returned to his
abbey in 1853 as a teacher, principally of physics. In 1856, he took
the exam to become a certified teacher and again failed the oral
part. In 1867, he replaced Napp as abbot of the monastery.
After he was elevated as abbot in 1868, his scientific work largely
ended, as Mendel became overburdened with administrative
responsibilities, especially a dispute with the civil government over
its attempt to impose special taxes on religious institutions.
Mendel died on 6 January 1884, at the age of 61, in Brno, Moravia,
Austria-Hungary (now Czech Republic), from chronic nephritis. Czech
Leoš Janáček played the organ at his funeral. After his
death, the succeeding abbot burned all papers in Mendel's collection,
to mark an end to the disputes over taxation.
Experiments on plant hybridization
Dominant and recessive phenotypes. (1) Parental generation. (2) F1
generation. (3) F2 generation.
Gregor Mendel, who is known as the "father of modern genetics", was
inspired by both his professors at the Palacký University, Olomouc
Friedrich Franz and Johann Karl Nestler), and his colleagues at the
monastery (such as Franz Diebl) to study variation in plants. In 1854,
Napp authorized Mendel to carry out a study in the monastery's 2
hectares (4.9 acres) experimental garden, which was originally
planted by Napp in 1830. Unlike Nestler, who studied hereditary
traits in sheep, Mendel used the common edible pea and started his
experiments in 1856.
After initial experiments with pea plants, Mendel settled on studying
seven traits that seemed to be inherited independently of other
traits: seed shape, flower color, seed coat tint, pod shape, unripe
pod color, flower location, and plant height. He first focused on seed
shape, which was either angular or round. Between 1856 and 1863
Mendel cultivated and tested some 28,000 plants, the majority of which
were pea plants (Pisum sativum). This study showed that,
when true-breeding different varieties were crossed to each other
(e.g., tall plants fertilized by short plants), in the second
generation, one in four pea plants had purebred recessive traits, two
out of four were hybrids, and one out of four were purebred dominant.
His experiments led him to make two generalizations, the Law of
Segregation and the Law of Independent Assortment, which later came to
be known as Mendel's Laws of Inheritance.
Initial reception of Mendel's work
Mendel presented his paper, "Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden"
("Experiments on Plant Hybridization"), at two meetings of the Natural
History Society of
Moravia on 8 February and 8 March 1865.
It generated a few favorable reports in local newspapers, but was
ignored by the scientific community. When Mendel's paper was published
in 1866 in Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines in Brünn,
it was seen as essentially about hybridization rather than
inheritance, had little impact, and was only cited about three times
over the next thirty-five years. His paper was criticized at the time,
but is now considered a seminal work. Notably,
Charles Darwin was
unaware of Mendel's paper, and it is envisaged that if he had,
genetics as we know it now might have taken hold much earlier.
Mendel's scientific biography thus provides an example of the failure
of obscure, highly original, innovators to receive the attention they
Mendel began his studies on heredity using mice. He was at St.
Thomas's Abbey but his bishop did not like one of his friars studying
animal sex, so Mendel switched to plants. Mendel also bred bees in
a bee house that was built for him, using bee hives that he
designed. He also studied astronomy and meteorology, founding
the 'Austrian Meteorological Society' in 1865. The majority of his
published works was related to meteorology.
Mendel also experimented with hawkweed (Hieracium) and honeybees.
He published a report on his work with hawkweed, a group of plants
of great interest to scientists at the time because of their
diversity. However, the results of Mendel's inheritance study in
hawkweeds was unlike his results for peas; the first generation was
very variable and many of their offspring were identical to the
maternal parent. In his correspondence with
Carl Nägeli he discussed
his results but was unable to explain them. It was not appreciated
until the end of the nineteen century that many hawkweed species were
apomictic, producing most of their seeds through an asexual process.
None of his results on bees survived, except for a passing mention in
the reports of Moravian Apiculture Society. All that is known
definitely is that he used Cyprian and Carniolan bees, which were
particularly aggressive to the annoyance of other monks and visitors
of the monastery such that he was asked to get rid of them.
Mendel, on the other hand, was fond of his bees, and referred to them
as "my dearest little animals".
He also described novel plant species, and these are denoted with the
botanical author abbreviation "Mendel".
Rediscovery of Mendel's work
It would appear that the forty odd scientists who listened to Mendel's
two path-breaking lectures failed to understand his work. Later, he
also carried a correspondence with Carl Naegeli, one of the leading
biologists of the time, but Naegli too failed to appreciate Mendel's
discoveries. At times, Mendel must have entertained doubts about his
work, but not always: "My time will come," he reportedly told a
During Mendel's lifetime, most biologists held the idea that all
characteristics were passed to the next generation through blending
inheritance, in which the traits from each parent are averaged.
Instances of this phenomenon are now explained by the action of
multiple genes with quantitative effects.
Charles Darwin tried
unsuccessfully to explain inheritance through a theory of pangenesis.
It was not until the early twentieth century that the importance of
Mendel's ideas was realized.
By 1900, research aimed at finding a successful theory of
discontinuous inheritance rather than blending inheritance led to
independent duplication of his work by
Hugo de Vries
Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns,
and the rediscovery of Mendel's writings and laws. Both acknowledged
Mendel's priority, and it is thought probable that de Vries did not
understand the results he had found until after reading Mendel.
Erich von Tschermak
Erich von Tschermak was originally also credited with
rediscovery, this is no longer accepted because he did not understand
Mendel's laws. Though de Vries later lost interest in Mendelism,
other biologists started to establish modern genetics as a science.
All three of these researchers, each from a different country,
published their rediscovery of Mendel's work within a two-month span
in the Spring of 1900.
Mendel's results were quickly replicated, and genetic linkage quickly
worked out. Biologists flocked to the theory; even though it was not
yet applicable to many phenomena, it sought to give a genotypic
understanding of heredity which they felt was lacking in previous
studies of heredity which focused on phenotypic approaches. Most
prominent of these previous approaches was the biometric school of
Karl Pearson and W. F. R. Weldon, which was based heavily on
statistical studies of phenotype variation. The strongest opposition
to this school came from William Bateson, who perhaps did the most in
the early days of publicising the benefits of Mendel's theory (the
word "genetics", and much of the discipline's other terminology,
originated with Bateson). This debate between the biometricians and
the Mendelians was extremely vigorous in the first two decades of the
twentieth century, with the biometricians claiming statistical and
mathematical rigor, whereas the Mendelians claimed a better
understanding of biology. (Modern genetics shows that
Mendelian heredity is in fact an inherently biological process, though
not all genes of Mendel's experiments are yet understood.)
In the end, the two approaches were combined, especially by work
R. A. Fisher
R. A. Fisher as early as 1918. The combination, in the
1930s and 1940s, of Mendelian genetics with Darwin's theory of natural
selection resulted in the modern synthesis of evolutionary
The Mendelian Paradox
In 1936, R.A. Fisher, a prominent statistician and population
geneticist, reconstructed Mendel's experiments, analyzed results from
the F2 (second filial) generation and found the ratio of dominant to
recessive phenotypes (e.g. green versus yellow peas; round versus
wrinkled peas) to be implausibly and consistently too close to the
expected ratio of 3 to 1. Fisher asserted that "the data
of most, if not all, of the experiments have been falsified so as to
agree closely with Mendel's expectations," Mendel's alleged
observations, according to Fisher, were "abominable", "shocking",
Other scholars agree with Fisher that Mendel's various observations
come uncomfortably close to Mendel's expectations. Dr. Edwards,
for instance, remarks: "One can applaud the lucky gambler; but when he
is lucky again tomorrow, and the next day, and the following day, one
is entitled to become a little suspicious". Three other lines of
evidence likewise lend support to the assertion that Mendel’s
results are indeed too good to be true.
Fisher's analysis gave rise to the Mendelian Paradox, a paradox that
remains unsolved to this very day. Thus, on the one hand, Mendel's
reported data are, statistically speaking, too good to be true; on the
other, "everything we know about Mendel suggests that he was unlikely
to engage in either deliberate fraud or in unconscious adjustment of
his observations." A number of writers have attempted to resolve
One attempted explanation invokes confirmation bias. Fisher
accused Mendel's experiments as "biased strongly in the direction of
agreement with expectation... to give the theory the benefit of
doubt". This might arise if he detected an approximate 3 to 1
ratio early in his experiments with a small sample size, and, in cases
where the ratio appeared to deviate slightly from this, continued
collecting more data until the results conformed more nearly to an
In his 2004, J.W. Porteous concluded that Mendel's observations were
indeed implausible. However, reproduction of the experiments has
demonstrated that there is no real bias towards Mendel's data.
Another attempt to resolve the Mendelian Paradox notes that a
conflict may sometimes arise between the moral imperative of a
bias-free recounting of one's factual observations and the even more
important imperative of advancing scientific knowledge. Mendel might
have felt compelled “to simplify his data in order to meet real, or
feared, editorial objections.” Such an action could be justified
on moral grounds (and hence provide a resolution to the Mendelian
Paradox), since the alternative—refusing to comply—might have
retarded the growth of scientific knowledge. Similarly, like so many
other obscure innovators of science, Mendel, a little known
innovator of working-class background, had to “break through the
cognitive paradigms and social prejudices of his audience. If such
a breakthrough “could be best achieved by deliberately omitting some
observations from his report and adjusting others to make them more
palatable to his audience, such actions could be justified on moral
Daniel L. Hartl and
Daniel J. Fairbanks reject outright Fisher's
statistical argument, suggesting that Fisher incorrectly interpreted
Mendel's experiments. They find it likely that Mendel scored more than
10 progeny, and that the results matched the expectation. They
conclude: "Fisher's allegation of deliberate falsification can finally
be put to rest, because on closer analysis it has proved to be
unsupported by convincing evidence." In 2008 Hartl and
Fairbanks (with Allan Franklin and AWF Edwards) wrote a comprehensive
book in which they concluded that there were no reasons to assert
Mendel fabricated his results, nor that Fisher deliberately tried to
diminish Mendel's legacy. Reassessment of Fisher's statistical
analysis, according to these authors, also disprove the notion of
confirmation bias in Mendel's results.
List of Roman Catholic cleric–scientists
Mendel Museum of Genetics
Mendel Polar Station
Mendel Polar Station in Antarctica
Mendel University Brno
^ a b Funeral card in Czech (Brno, 6. January 1884)
^ 20 July is his birthday; often mentioned is 22 July, the date of his
baptism. Biography of Mendel at the Mendel Museum
^ a b Solitude of a Humble Genius – Gregor Johann Mendel: Volume 1:
Formative Years, Jan Klein and Norman Klein, pp 91–103
^ a b "Nirenberg: History Section: Gregor Mendel".
^ a b c Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: the history of an idea.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
^ Gregor Mendel, Alain F. Corcos, Floyd V. Monaghan, Maria C. Weber
"Gregor Mendel's Experiments on Plant Hybrids: A Guided Study",
Rutgers University Press, 1993.
^ Henig 2000, pp. 19–21.
^ a b Iltis, Hugo (1958).
Gregor Mendel and his Work (1943). Reprinted
in: Shapley, H. et al. (eds) A Treasury of Science. New York:
^ Henig 2000, p. 24.
^ Hasan, Heather (2004). Mendel and The Laws Of Genetics. The Rosen
Publishing Group. ISBN 9781404203099.
^ a b Henig 2000, pp. 47–62.
^ a b c "The Mathematics of Inheritance". Online museum exhibition.
The Masaryk University Mendel Museum. Archived from the original on 31
January 2013. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
^ a b c "Online Museum Exhibition". The Masaryk University Mendel
Museum. Archived from the original on 21 October 2014. Retrieved 20
^ Windle, B.C.A. (1911). "Mendel, Mendelism". Catholic Encyclopedia.
Looby, John (trans.). Retrieved 2 April 2007.
^ Carlson, Elof Axel (2004). "Doubts about Mendel's integrity are
exaggerated". Mendel's Legacy. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring
Harbor Laboratory Press. pp. 48–49.
^ "Mendel's Garden". The Masaryk University Mendel Museum. Archived
from the original on 14 July 2011. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
^ Henig 2000, pp. 78–80.
^ Magner, Lois N. (2002). History of the Life Sciences (3, revised
ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. p. 380.
^ Gros, Franc̜ois (1992). The
Gene Civilization (English Language
ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. p. 28.
^ Moore, Randy (2001). "The "Rediscovery" of Mendel's Work" (PDF).
Bioscene. 27 (2): 13–24. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16
^ Butler, John M. (2010). Fundamentals of Forensic
Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press. pp. 34–35.
^ Henig 2000, pp. 134–138.
^ Randy Moore (May 2001). "The "Rediscovery" of Mendel's Work" (PDF).
Bioscene. 27. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 February
^ Mendel, J.G. (1866). "Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden",
Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines in Brünn, Bd. IV für das
Jahr, 1865, Abhandlungen: 3–47, . For the English translation,
see: Druery, C.T.; Bateson, William (1901). "Experiments in plant
hybridization" (PDF). Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society. 26:
1–32. Retrieved 9 October 2009.
^ Galton, D. J. (2011). "Did Mendel falsify his data?". QJM. 105 (2):
215–216. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcr195. PMID 22006558.
^ Lorenzano, P (2011). "What would have happened if Darwin had known
Mendel (or Mendel's work)?". History and Philosophy of the Life
Sciences. 33 (1): 3–49. PMID 21789954.
^ Liu, Y (2005). "Darwin and Mendel: who was the pioneer of
genetics?". Rivista di Biologia. 98 (2): 305–22.
^ a b Nissani, M. (1995). "The Plight of the Obscure Innovator in
Science". Social Studies of Science. 25: 165–183.
^ Henig 2000, pp. 15–17.
^ "The Enigma of Generation and the Rise of the Cell". The Masaryk
University Mendel Museum. Archived from the original on 21 October
2014. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
^ a b Nogler, GA (2006). "The lesser-known Mendel: his experiments on
Hieracium". Genetics. 172 (1): 1–6. PMC 1456139 .
^ Mendel, Gregor (1869). "Ueber einige aus künstlicher Befruchtung
gewonnenen Hieracium-Bastarde. (On Hieracium hybrids obtained by
artificial fertilisation)". Verh. Naturf. Ver. Brünn. 8
^ Orel, Vítězslav; Rozman, Josef; Veselý, Vladimír (1965). Mendel
as a Beekeeper. Moravian Museum. pp. 12–14.
^ Demerec, M. (1956). Advances in Genetics. New York, N.Y.: Academic
Press. p. 110. ISBN 978-0-0805-6795-2.
^ Roberts, Michael; Ingram, Neil (2001). Biology (2 ed.). Cheltenham:
Nelson Thornes. p. 277. ISBN 978-0-7487-6238-5.
^ Matalova, A; Kabelka, A (1982). "The beehouse of Gregor Mendel".
Casopis Moravskeho musea. Acta Musei Moraviae – Vedy prirodni. Car
Morav Mus Acta Mus Vedy Prir. 57: 207–212.
^ "Index of Botanists: Mendel, Gregor Johann". HUH -- Databases --
Botanist Search. Harvard University Herbaria & Libraries.
Retrieved 29 January 2018.
^ Mayr E. (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. p. 730.
^ Henig 2000, pp. 1–9.
^ Carlson, Elof Axel (2004). Mendel's Legacy: The Origins of Classical
Genetics. New York: Cold Spring Harbor.
^ Deichmann, Ute (2011). "Early 20th-century research at the
interfaces of genetics, development, and evolution: Reflections on
progress and dead ends". Developmental Biology. 357 (1): 3–12.
doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2011.02.020. PMID 21392502.
^ Elston, RC; Thompson, EA (2000). "A century of biometrical
genetics". Biometrics. 56 (3): 659–66.
doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00659.x. PMID 10985200.
^ Pilpel, Avital (September 2007). "Statistics is not enough:
revisiting Ronald A. Fisher's critique (1936) of Mendel's experimental
results (1866)". Studies in History and Philosophy of
Science Part C:
Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical
Sciences. 38 (3): 618–626. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2007.06.009.
^ Reid, J. B.; Ross, J. J. (2011). "Mendel's genes: toward a full
molecular characterization". Genetics. 189 (1): 3–10.
doi:10.1534/genetics.111.132118. PMC 3176118 .
^ Ellis, T.H. Noel; Hofer, Julie M.I.; Timmerman-Vaughan, Gail M.;
Coyne, Clarice J.; Hellens, Roger P. (2011). "Mendel, 150 years on".
Trends in Plant Science. 16 (11): 590–596.
doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2011.06.006. PMID 21775188.
^ Kutschera, Ulrich; Niklas, KarlJ. (2004). "The modern theory of
biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften. 91
(6): 255–276. Bibcode:2004NW.....91..255K.
doi:10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y. PMID 15241603.
^ Hall, Brian Keith; Hallgrímsson, Benedikt; Strickberger, Monroe W.
(2014). Strickberger's evolution (5 ed.). Burlington, Mass.: Jones
& Bartlett Learning. pp. 10–11.
^ a b c Fisher, R.A. (1936). "Has Mendel's work been rediscovered?"
(PDF). Annals of Science. 1 (2): 115–137.
^ Thompson, EA (1990). "R.A. Fisher's contributions to genetical
statistics". Biometrics. 46 (4): 905–14. doi:10.2307/2532436.
^ Pilgrim, I (1984). "The too-good-to-be-true paradox and Gregor
Mendel". The Journal of Heredity. 75 (6): 501–502.
^ a b Hartl, Daniel L.; Fairbanks, Daniel J. (2007). "Mud sticks: On
the alleged falsification of Mendel's Data". Genetics. 175 (3):
975–979. PMC 1840063 . PMID 17384156.
^ Piegorsch, WW (1990). "Fisher's contributions to genetics and
heredity, with special emphasis on the
Gregor Mendel controversy".
Biometrics. 46 (4): 915–924. doi:10.2307/2532437.
^ a b c d Edwards, A. W. F. (1986). "More on the too-good-to-be-true
paradox and Gregor Mendel". Journal of Heredity. 77: 138.
^ a b c d Nissani, M. (1994). "Psychological, Historical, and Ethical
Reflections on the Mendelian Paradox". Perspectives in Biology and
Medicine. 37: 182–196. doi:10.1353/pbm.1994.0027.
^ Price, Michael (2010). "Sins against science: Data fabrication and
other forms of scientific misconduct may be more prevalent than you
think". Monitor on Psychology. 41 (7): 44.
^ Porteous, JW (2004). "We still fail to account for Mendel's
observations". Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling. 1: 4.
doi:10.1186/1742-4682-1-4. PMC 516238 .
^ Fairbanks, D. J.; Schaalje, G. B. (2007). "The tetrad-pollen model
fails to explain the bias in Mendel's pea (Pisum sativum)
experiments". Genetics. 177 (4): 2531–2534.
doi:10.1534/genetics.107.079970. PMC 2219470 .
^ Novitski, Charles E. (2004). "On Fisher's criticism of Mendel's
results with the garden pea". Genetics. 166 (3): 1133–1136.
doi:10.1534/genetics.166.3.1133. PMC 1470775 .
PMID 15082533. Retrieved 20 March 2010. In conclusion, Fisher’s
criticism of Mendel’s data—that Mendel was obtaining data too
close to false expectations in the two sets of experiments involving
the determination of segregation ratios—is undoubtedly
^ Franklin, Allan; Edwards, AWF; Fairbanks, Daniel J; Hartl, Daniel L
(2008). Ending the Mendel-Fisher controversy. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press. p. 67.
^ Monaghan, F; Corcos, A (1985). "Chi-square and Mendel's experiments:
where's the bias?". The Journal of Heredity. 76 (4): 307–309.
^ Novitski, C. E. (2004). "Revision of Fisher's analysis of Mendel's
garden pea experiments". Genetics. 166 (3): 1139–1140.
doi:10.1534/genetics.166.3.1139. PMC 1470784 .
Smith, Jos A.; Cheryl Bardoe; Smith, Joseph A. (2006). Gregor Mendel:
the friar who grew peas. Abrams Books for Young Readers.
William Bateson Mendel, Gregor; Bateson, William (2009). Mendel's
Principles of Heredity: A Defence, with a Translation of Mendel's
Original Papers on Hybridisation (Cambridge Library Collection –
Life Sciences). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 1-108-00613-2. On-line Facsimile Edition: Electronic
Scholarly Publishing, Prepared by Robert Robbins
Klein, Jan; Klein, Norman (2013). Solitude of a Humble Genius –
Gregor Johann Mendel: Volume 1. Heidelberg: Springer.
Henig, Robin Marantz (2000). The Monk in the Garden: The Lost and
Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0395-97765-1.
Robert Lock, Recent Progress in the Study of Variation,
Evolution, London, 1906
Orel, Vítĕzslav (1996). Gregor Mendel: the first geneticist. Oxford
[Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-854774-9.
Reginald Punnett, Mendelism, Cambridge, 1905
Curt Stern and Sherwood ER (1966) The Origin of Genetics.
Tudge, Colin (2000). In Mendel's footnotes: an introduction to the
science and technologies of genes and genetics from the nineteenth
century to the twenty-second. London: Vintage.
Waerden, B. L. V. D. (1968). "Mendel's Experiments". Centaurus. 12
(4): 275–288. Bibcode:1968Cent...12..275V.
doi:10.1111/j.1600-0498.1968.tb00098.x. PMID 4880928.
refutes allegations about "data smoothing"
James Walsh, Catholic Churchmen in Science, Philadelphia: Dolphin
Ronald A. Fisher, "Has Mendel's Work Been Rediscovered?" Annals of
Science, Volume 1, (1936): 115–137. Discusses the possibility of
fraud in his research.
Punnett, Reginald Crundall (1922). "Mendelism". London:
Macmillan. (1st Pub. 1905)
Taylor, Monica (July–September 1922). "
Abbot Mendel". Dublin Review.
London: Burns, Oates and Washbourne.
Windle, Bertram C. A. (1915). "Mendel and His Theory of Heredity". A
Century of Scientific Thought and Other Essays. Burns &
Zumkeller, Adolar & Hartmann, Arnulf. 1971. Recently Discovered
Sermon Sketches of Gregor Mendel. Folia Mendeliana 6:247–252
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Gregor Mendel.
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Gregor Mendel
Gregor Mendel at Project Gutenberg
Works by or about
Gregor Mendel at Internet Archive
Gregor Mendel at
LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
1913 Catholic Encyclopedia entry, "Mendel, Mendelism"
Augustinian Abbey of St. Thomas at Brno
Biography, bibliography and access to digital sources in the Virtual
Laboratory of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science
Biography of Gregor Mendel
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884)
Gregor Mendel Primary Sources
Johann Gregor Mendel: Why his discoveries were ignored for 35 (72)
years (in German)
Masaryk University to rebuild Mendel’s greenhouse
Mendel Museum of Genetics
Mendel's Paper in English
Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man
A photographic tour of St. Thomas' Abbey, Brno, Czech Republic
ISNI: 0000 0001 2119 4092
BNF: cb12298563v (data)
the British Isles
the Near East
List of genetics research organizations
History of biology
Zoology (since 1859)
Zoology (through 1859)
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Laboratory of Molecular Biology
Marine Biological Laboratory
Max Planck Society
Rothamsted Experimental Station
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Germ theory of disease
Central dogma of molecular biology
Great chain of being
Hierarchy of life
One gene–one enzyme hypothesis
RNA world hypothesis
On Generation and Corruption
History of Animals
De Materia Medica
De humani corporis fabrica
De Motu Cordis
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
Principles of Geology
On the Origin of Species
The Descent of Man
Alfred Russel Wallace
Henry Walter Bates
Genetics and the Origin of Species
R. A. Fisher
E. B. Ford
J. B. S. Haldane
Thomas Hunt Morgan
George Gaylord Simpson
Hugo de Vries
Stephen Jay Gould
W. D. Hamilton
George C. Williams
Karl Ernst von Baer
Gavin de Beer
Sean B. Carroll
Scott F. Gilbert
Edward B. Lewis
E. B. Wilson
Crick, Brenner et al. (1961)
James D. Watson
James D. Watson and Francis Crick
"Molecular structure of Nucleic Acids"
"Sickle Cell Anemia, a Molecular Disease"
Karl von Frisch
Frans de Waal
History of science
Philosophy of biology
History of the creation-evolution controversy
Relationship between religion and science
Timeline of biology and organic chemistry