ID# 72:
Karl Pearson review of R.H. Johnson paper submitted to Nature
Pages: (1|2|3)
American Philosophical Society, ERO, MSC77

Karl Pearson review of R.H. Johnson paper submitted to Nature

Copy I do not think I have any remark to make on the above letter except to state that until I saw it I had not read or heard of the Rev. J.T. Gulick's memoir. Having done so since, I feel rather overwhelmed with the mountain of terminology and the hillock of Statistical fact. I see therein no numerical proof that fertility is inherited or that it is correlated with other characters. But it is such proof with which I personally am alone concerned. All sorts of factors of evolution are day by day propounded by biologists; I may be right or I may be wrong, but I held that their discussion is worthless until they are brought to the test of facts and analysed by the mathematical theory of statistics. The opening words of my memoir on Reproductive selection fully express my standpoint "I understand by a factor of evolution any

Copyright 1999-2004: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; American Philosophical Society; Truman State University; Rockefeller Archive Center/Rockefeller University; University of Albany, State University of New York; National Park Service, Statue of Liberty National Monument; University College, London; International Center of Photography; Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Berlin-Dahlem; and Special Collections, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
The images and text in this Archive are solely for educational and scholarly uses. The materials may be used in digital or print form in reports, research, and other projects that are not offered for sale. Materials in this archive may not be used in digital or print form by organizations or commercial concerns, except with express permission.