Premium
JOHN HENRY SCHAFFNER (1866–1939) AND REDUCTION DIVISION IN PLANTS: LEGEND AND FACT
Author(s) -
Troyer James R.
Publication year - 1989
Publication title -
american journal of botany
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.218
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1537-2197
pISSN - 0002-9122
DOI - 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1989.tb15103.x
Subject(s) - legend , dissenting opinion , division (mathematics) , root (linguistics) , division of labour , sociology , classics , history , ethnology , law , philosophy , political science , linguistics , art history , arithmetic , mathematics
A persistent legend in the United States has maintained that John Henry Schaffner first observed the chromosomal mechanism of reduction division in plants but received no credit for this discovery. Subsidiary elements of the legend have held that Schaffner made his pioneering observations as a graduate student and as a result of conflict over them had to give up his studies without obtaining a doctoral degree. Although Schaffner himself and some of his close associates have claimed priority, historical and technical cytological discussions generally make no mention of him. This investigation includes an examination of original research literature relevant to the controversy over reduction which marked the years from about 1890 to about 1910. Although Schaffner did not discover all the details of meiotic chromosome behavior as later understood, in 1897 he was apparently the first to report for plants a qualitative reduction in the first division. He consistently repeated this report in three subsequent works. These results were strongly at variance with the views of leading botanical authorities. Analysis of the citation of Schaffner's publications by his contemporaries reveals a low recognition of him, especially by Eduard Strasburger and associates. Consideration of cultural and social factors operating in botany at the time sheds light on this situation. The proposal is advanced that it was largely through the influence of the Strasburger “school” that Schaffner initially failed to receive the credit that he merited, and that as a consequence this failure has been perpetuated in subsequent accounts. Subsidiary elements of the legend have bases in fact, although causal relations cannot be ascribed with certainty.