Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 4
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Holterhoff, Kate 2014. The History and Reception of Charles Darwin’s Hypothesis of Pangenesis. Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 47, Issue. 4, p. 661.


    Gardner, Andy 2011. Kin selection under blending inheritance. Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 284, Issue. 1, p. 125.


    Hurst, Laurence D. 2009. Fundamental concepts in genetics: Genetics and the understanding of selection. Nature Reviews Genetics, Vol. 10, Issue. 2, p. 83.


    Wilkins, John S. 2009. Not Saint Darwin. Resonance, Vol. 14, Issue. 2, p. 154.


    ×
  • The British Journal for the History of Science, Volume 37, Issue 3
  • September 2004, pp. 281-297

Did Jenkin's swamping argument invalidate Darwin's theory of natural selection?

  • MICHAEL BULMER (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007087404005850
  • Published online: 01 September 2004
Abstract

Fleeming Jenkin's swamping argument (1867) is re-examined in relation to subsequent criticisms of its assumptions. Jenkin's original argument purported to show that, under blending inheritance, natural selection could not operate on ‘sports’ or ‘single variations’. A serious flaw in Jenkin's model was exposed in a forgotten paper in 1871. Darwin accepted Jenkin's ‘flawed’ conclusion, though he did not fully understand the argument. Both Jenkin and Darwin regarded the swamping argument as a barrier to evolution within a single lineage. A completely different interpretation of the phrase ‘swamping argument’, first put forward by Romanes in 1886, identified it with the problem of the role of free intercrossing in preventing speciation. The latter problem also underlies current debate about the possibility of sympatric speciation and is as serious under particulate as under blending inheritance. Jenkin's argument depended on the assumption of blending inheritance; when modified to remove the ‘flaw’ in his model, it ceased to present a barrier to the operation of natural selection within a lineage, provided that the mutation rate was high enough to maintain adequate genetic variability under blending.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
I thank Jonathan Hodge and my referees for valuable comments.
Footnotes
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The British Journal for the History of Science
  • ISSN: 0007-0874
  • EISSN: 1474-001X
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×