2017
DOI: 10.1163/18759866-08604001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The case of the midwife toad revisited

Abstract: In a recent paper it was suggested that results published by Kammerer (1911) on the midwife toad could be explained by epigenetics (Vargas et al., 2016). We show that data thought to be fitting are based on untested assumptions about the underlying genetic mechanisms. We cite recent studies on the genetics of life history traits, in particular egg-size and number, to show that these assumptions are not realistic. We review aspects of Kammerer’s experimental results on the midwife toad for which there are no pl… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
(45 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…After the discovery of data manipulation in some of Kammerer's experiments during his lifetime, his research was dismissed by the scientific community of that time. Indeed, it is unequivocal that at least some of his experiments did not only lack data to prove his claims, but contained deliberate manipulations, such as the artificially swollen nuptial pads on midwife toads, the discovery of which eventually marked his scientific downfall (van Alphen & Arntzen, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After the discovery of data manipulation in some of Kammerer's experiments during his lifetime, his research was dismissed by the scientific community of that time. Indeed, it is unequivocal that at least some of his experiments did not only lack data to prove his claims, but contained deliberate manipulations, such as the artificially swollen nuptial pads on midwife toads, the discovery of which eventually marked his scientific downfall (van Alphen & Arntzen, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Remember the story of P. Kammerer , who interpreted his findings as supporting heritability of acquired characteristics , was then accused of scientific falsifications by W. Bateson , and committed suicide ” (Zhivotovsky 2014). By failing to mention the details of Paul Kammerer’s work (Alphen and Arntzen 2016, 2017), a distorted image is given to young biologists who know little of this tragic case in the history of science.…”
Section: Attempts To Reassess the Vaskhnil August 1948 Session In Modmentioning
confidence: 99%