↓ Skip to main content

The History and Reception of Charles Darwin’s Hypothesis of Pangenesis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the History of Biology, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 308)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
The History and Reception of Charles Darwin’s Hypothesis of Pangenesis
Published in
Journal of the History of Biology, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10739-014-9377-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kate Holterhoff

Abstract

This paper explores Charles Darwin's hypothesis of pangenesis through a popular and professional reception history. First published in The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication (1868), pangenesis stated that inheritance can be explained by sub-cellular "gemmules" which aggregated in the sexual organs during intercourse. Pangenesis thereby accounted for the seemingly arbitrary absence and presence of traits in offspring while also clarifying some botanical and invertebrates' limb regeneration abilities. I argue that critics largely interpreted Variation as an extension of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859), while pangenesis was an extension of natural selection. Contrary to claims that pangenesis was divorced from natural selection by its reliance on the inheritance of acquired characters, pangenesis's mid nineteenth-century reception suggests that Darwin's hypothesis responded directly to selection's critics. Using Variation's several editions, periodical reviews, and personal correspondence I assess pangenesis popularly, professionally, and biographically to better understand Variation's impact on 1860s and 70s British evolutionism and inheritance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 5%
Slovenia 1 5%
United Kingdom 1 5%
Egypt 1 5%
Canada 1 5%
Unknown 14 74%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 26%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Master 3 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Other 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 63%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 16%
Unspecified 1 5%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Other 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,667,935
of 12,276,449 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the History of Biology
#31
of 308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,089
of 195,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the History of Biology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,276,449 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 308 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 195,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them