Talk:Gregor Mendel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Austrian?

Since he was born in Moravia, which constitute from 1019 Czech lands and he also died there, I really do not understand why he should be called "Austrian monk" with a link to Austria ... is Mahatma Gandhi a british politician? --PowerCS 12:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

He was ethnically Austrian, spoke German, and trained in Vienna. At the time the was part of the Austrian Empire and later Austria-Hungary. The Czechs have named a university after him and (I think) tried to claim him for themselves but the evidence is contrary. Gandhi (apart from being dead, btw) was Indian but also campaigned for civil rights in South Africa. That by your reasoning makes him South African? — Dunc|☺ 20:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

1)There was no "Austrian ethnicity" at that time. 2)Bohemia (including Moravia) was a multiethnic state at that time (just like Switzerland or Belgium of today), where about 1/3 of the population spoke German as their mother tongue. 3)Spending two years at the University of Vienna doesnt make one Austrian. 4)He spend virtually all his life in Moravia, which was since 11th century part of Bohemia, which was since 1804 (i.e. 12 years when Mendel was born) part of the Austrian Empire. Mendel was as Austrian, as Antonín Dvořák, František Palacký, Lajos Kossuth or Sándor Petőfi. Qertis 09:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My flipping rear-end there wasn't. I'm sure my Austrian ancestors, the Aufschlagers (and my relatives still in the Wien area), would be more than happy to explain to you that you are incorrect.

The man was of Germanic, not Slavic ancestory, so the real question is whether or not one considers him German or Austrian. He was as Czech as my Bavarian relative who enjoyed his 1938-1939 vacation in the Sudetenland. •Jim62sch• 20:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

1)We dont know whether he had any Slavic ancestors or not. 2)One can consider him Moravian (he was born in Moravia), Bohemian (Moravia was/is part of Bohemia), Austrian (Bohemia was part of the Austrian Empire) or German (he was German speaker). Puting only the third one of them into the first sentence is highly confusing, since present-day tiny Republic of Austria and former enormous Austrian Empire are completely different states and Mendel spent on the territory of present-day Austria only two or three years of his life. Qertis 12:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if (1) you are born in in the kingdom of Bohemia, (2) you die there, (3) you spend most of your life there, (4) you speak one of the languages spoken there, and (5) you are its citizen, then what would be the reason not to call you a Czech (for obvious reasons, one uses only the word Czech for the inhabitants of Bohemia and not Bohemian)? Ethnically he was German, similarly as say Bob Dylan is Jewish (but he is still an American). You can make the same argument for Austria or Europe (since Bohemian kingdom was part of Austrian Empire and Europe), but Bohemia is more precise. My family spoke German until recently, I have German, Czech, Jewish, Croatian and probably French ancestors, but I was born in Czechia, and I have spent most of my life there and even though I speak English and I spent several years at a university in U.S. but I am still a Czech (and a European of course)--Jirka6 20:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

i have not stated that he was a czech (despite the fact that he was born in the czech kingdom as its citizen), however i don't think it is correct to write austrian – he considered himself btw as of a german nationality. as was correctly noticed by Qertis, until second world war the population of Czech lands was of mixed nationality: czech, german (never heard about austrian, sorry) and jewish. moreover the czech kingdom was more-or-less independent despite that it was not acknowledged by crowning the austrian kings as a czech suvereign. is Franz Kafka also an austrian author? i don't think so ... --PowerCS 11:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Usually people like Mendel are described as Austrian, although at that time his ethnicity would have been described as German. He was certainly not Czech. Neither would people at that time have used this term nor did Czechs later do so. In 1945-47, all ethnic Germans, in the range of some millions, were driven out of the country for reasons of "collective guilt" for Nazi atrocities, and would Mendel have lived at that time, he would have been one of them. By the way, nobody spoke of "Austrians" at that time, and nearly all refugees settled in neighbouring Bavaria, which is part of Germany. The Austrians did not want to accept these people, because this would have posed difficult logical questions: When these people are driven out because they are Austrians, then Austrians would have been guilty of something. But as Austria was a self-declared victim of the war, this could not be true in the new ideology of the Austrian republic. So that is why Mendel, Mozart and Freud are considered Austrian (=good), Hitler, Eichmann and the refugees after 1945, however, German (=bad). In reality, the nationality and ethnicity of "Austrian" was invented in 1945. Please don't ask what nationality Kafka was. It is always difficult to project ideas onto a time where these ideas did not exist or had a different meaning.

Another dispute which hasn't come up yet (but which is beautifully suitable to excite nationalists) is why the German names for some places are not used in the article. Brno was at that time a city with a German majority and was generally known as Brünn in both in German and in English. See also Sudeten German. You will see that black/white doesn't work with matters of that complexity.

i agree that this question is quite complicated and the answer is not clear. however to solve this i suggest to change the first line to either "... was an Austria-Czech monk who ..." (like in Ernst Mach article) or to "... was a Brno monk who ..." (like in Franz Kafka one).
reacting to the previous post: are you sure that he did not consider himself as a german Czech? there were such people, especialy in time when after germanisation the majority of czech lands speaks german and not czech. therefore also Brno was called Brünn despite the fact that before and after it was always Brno. it is like after an occupation (please see [1]) anywhere else on the world. --PowerCS 15:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Simon Dach article, where Poles try to claim Dach was Polish. •Jim62sch• 20:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

While modern Austria (Deutcher Osterreich) is a post-1919 creation, the Hapsburg Empire after 1806 was called the the Austrian Empire, and after 1867 it was Austria-Hungary. So to call a German from Bohemia an "Austrian" seems reasonable. More importantly, since he is generally called an Austrian, I think we should refrain from calling him "Bohemian" unless we can find a reasonable source which supports that interpretation. Guettarda 22:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nowadays concepts of nationality simply do not fit the situation in the 19th century. I replaced the term "Austrian" by a whole sentence describing the situation. Nahabedere 11:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

i fully agree, thanx. --PowerCS 13:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I rewrote the introduction. The introduction should be precise and short, giving an idea about why this person is cited here. His place of birth and the description of where it was and where it is today can be found in the biography section. I changed "Moravia" to "Austrian Silesia", because his birthplace was not located in Moravia. "Austrian Silesia" was the part of Silesia which was not incorporated into Prussia by Frederic the Great and thus remained with Austria. It was called "Duchy of Silesia" or, in German, "Herzogtum Schlesien". I did not use the latter term however, because people would certainly not understand where this place is geographically located (as everybody would then think he would have been born in the Prussian province of Silesia, which was much bigger and more important than the small and till today rather unknown "Duchy of Silesia"). It was only later, after 1918 - that is, long after Mendel's death, that this region was incorporated into Czechoslovakia and was then known as "Moravian Silesia". Thus, I think that "Austrian Silesia" fits best. I also included the German names of Olmütz, because this was the name which was mainly known in the English-speaking world at that time. The Czech is mentioned with a link. See also here: [[2]]. Concerning his ethnicity and nationality: I did not put anything about this in the text to avoid a further heating-up of the discussion. For most people who studied his biography and the history of his region of birth, it is quite clear that Mendel himself would have considered himself both German and Austrian, but certainly not Czech. Although there was a certain mixture of populations, it was relatively clear who was Czech and who was German. In Moravia, where Mendel spent most of his time, most cities had a German majority, the Czechs often prevailed in more rural regions. The Moravian diet was later (starting 1905) elected in ethnically defined constituencies, and a lot of things were organized according to ethnicity. Unfortunately, there is not much English literature about this topic online, but see for example here: [[3]]. By the way, I hope that the other details of his life, and of course, his scientific accomplishments, receive as much attention as does the question of his ethnicity and nationality. Candidus 19:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

i have a slight impression that the terms "nationality" and "domicile" are mixed here inappropriately. but what i wanted by my first comment emphasize was that it is much more complicated than to describe him just as a "Austrian monk" since his only bound to Austria empire was (except of studies in Vienna and his language) that he was born and lived in the country occupied (in today terms) in 1620 by Austria ... btw: you all went a bit crazy, that those bloody Czechs want to claim him for themself but i have not find a single line suggesting to write something like "he was a czech monk" :P --PowerCS 12:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your use of the word "occupied" and I don't know where 1620 comes from. Silesia passes from Polish to Bohemian control in 1335, and Bohemia is under continuous Hapsburg control from 1526 - in other words, longer than Calais has been French. At the time he was born the area was considered part of the Austrian Empire. More importantly, he has always been referred to as an Austrian monk. It isn't for us to logic out what the "best" term for a person is - that constitutes OR. It isn't for us to reject established terminology because we don't like it. If you can find a modern, reputable source which argues against the old labels, then by all means go with that. I have no problem with using modern revisionist history, I just don't think that it's appropriate for us to formulate the ideas. Guettarda 13:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also favor staying with Mendel as an Austrian. This is not without problems, but it is commonly recognized, and all the alternatives will bring about even more problems. In my version, which was reverted in the meantime and then again established (not by me), I just let out the term "Austrian" because I wanted to avoid an edit war about a detail in an article. I also do not understand the word occupation. That is an anachronistic term in that context. Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia were colonized - not occupied - by German colonists starting, as far as I know, in the 12th/13th century. This was however not a national conflict, and this was not unique to that part of the world, but a very common phenomenon elsewhere. The slavic population did the same thing a few centuries earlier - the country was not empty when they arrived, there were already Celtic and Germanic tribes well before the Slavic settlement. A quarrel like this will thus always end in an infinite regress and does not help answer our question. Candidus 14:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

well, i didn't want to start any edit war i just posed a simple question. i think the whole concept of "my scientist, your scientist" is crazy, i could be childishly happy that e.g. Kurt Gödel or Sigmund Freud were born on Moravia and i have no need to claim them Czech. i was just surprised that Mendel was marked as Austrian since he spent virtually whole his life in Moravia.

concerning the "occupation" i am sorry to all those who were confused by this my hyperbole – the thing is that until 1620 the czech kingdom (despite the fact it belongs to the habsburg empire) has some level of autonomy and in those times world unique freedom of religion isued by Rudolf II. but after the Battle of White Mountain this all ended and czech lands were systematicly recatholicizied and germanizied. i called that "occupation", but that's inappropriate, it was used in those time and historically i guess common. --PowerCS 16:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

a side-remark unrelated to Mendel: I agree to recatholization (which happend throughout the empire, not only in the Czech lands), but the Habsburgs were not directly interested in germanization (their primary goal was to have power over an as-large-as possible part of Europe, whatever language they have to use for that). Of course, indirect germanization occurred as a consequence of the fact that the Czech lands were then part of an empire where a large part of the population spoke German and where German was the lingua franca. Germanization was done systematically only in the times of Marie Theresia and Josef II, but not due to some kind project to build a nation state, but simply due to the fact that they thought that systematic use of the German language would make their empire more efficient (i.e., out of power politics) Nahabedere 07:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The mistake of describing Mendel as Czech seems to be occurring with increasing frequency (most recently in the New York Review of Books, latest edition). Describing him as a German speaker from Austrian Silisea is cumbersome and so he is usually described simply as an Austrian. -- MikeKr 03:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And describing him as Austrian is as (in)correct as describing him as Czech. Nowadays simple national thinking simply does not fit the more complex historical situation Nahabedere 12:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. Calling him Austrian is an English language convention, and also a convenient shorthand for various more accurate descriptors (as I've said). Calling him Czech is simply wrong, and makes as much sense as describing East Prussians as Polish, and would be equally offensive. In fact it would make even less sense. In the English language the word "Czech" didn't gain currency until the twentieth century. Before that members of the ethnic group, of which Mendel was not a part, were referred to in English as Bohemians. So much for rhetoric about 'Nowadays simple national thinking'. MikeKr 23:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Austrian" is more than a convenient shorthand, since he was a German-speaking citizen of the "Austrian Empire". Czech would be incorrect (since he was not a Czech speaker or ethnically Czech) - it would have been like calling a Hungarian living in Vienna a German. Guettarda 23:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I would amend my post to add 'at the very least' before 'also a convenient shorthand'. -- MikeKr 23:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree: he fulfills the definition of Czech as "a person living in the Czech lands". The East Prussia-Poland analogy does not at all fit, since in the 19th century Poland did not exist, while the Czech lands, the Czech crown etc. DID exist (with the Habsburgs as kings), and btw. I am Austrian. Nahabedere 07:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I can live with the current version, which does not cite a nationality in the introduction, but explains his origins later in more detail. "Austrian" or "German" would also fit with me, "Czech" however sounds strange to me. If you apply the above definition ("a person living in the Czech lands"), you will end up in strange, anachronistic conclusions. Nobody would have called Mendel a "Czech" in the 19th century, and after World War II, all Germans (and probably also Mendel's relatives, if there were some at that time) in Czechoslovakia were as such deported. At least I am happy that the discussion so far seems to stay civilized. I think discussions like this can be very instructive, because everybody of us grew up in a specific environment with specific textbooks written in a certain national tradition, and perhaps even with familiy stories related to historic events. And the relations between Czechs, Austrians and Germans indeed were complicated, and unfortunately full of suffering. Candidus 16:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to see Nahabedere's definition of Czech as anything other than purposefully obtuse in this context, but I'll persist in assuming that the correspondent is simply mistaken, that in his or her antagonism to nationalism of any kind s/he has somehow mistakenly ended up saying exactly the same thing as Czech nationalists.

Czech nationalism says exactly the opposite: root out everything that even remotely smells German, replace all the German loan-words in Czech by Slavic ones, deny that the German-speaking population of the Czech lands had anything in common with the Czech speaking one ... Nahabedere 06:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

About the issue, rather than anyone here (necessarily): It may be useful to note that the creation of a supposed controversy where none actually exists is a classic extremist debating tactic. The American religious right's attempt to portray evolution as somehow controversial, when it is not, is the textbook example. Attempts to portray Mendel's heritage as disputed, when it is not, are getting harder to see in any other light.

The current introduction is a little convoluted. It reads as if it had been written to include the word Czech as often as possible! <g> Perhaps the following alternative would torture grammar a little less. If nobody objects, perhaps we could change it:

Mendel was born on July 22, 1822, in a German-speaking family in the village of Heinzendorf in Austrian Silesia, at that time a part of the Austrian Empire (today: Hynčice in the Czech Republic).

-- MikeKr 23:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

the current introduction does not contain the word Czech AT ALL (and neither the word Austrian or German). We should leave it at that. Nahabedere 06:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It says what you want, it's not suprising you don't want to change it. Mendel was Austrian and German, and that is neither controversial nor in dispute, except to those who want to erase the history of the Germans in Austrian Silesia. I am happy for it to be mentioned in the first line of his biography, as it now is, but ...

That line is the one I was suggesting be changed as its construction is quite clumsy. It now reads: Mendel was born on July 22, 1822, in a German-speaking family of Heinzendorf in Austrian Silesia (today: Czech Silesia, Czech Republic), which was at that time a land of the Austrian Empire (today: Hynčice (part of Vražné), district of Nový Jičín, Czech Republic).

The word Czech is indeed there three times, but it is the excess of commas and brackets I want to fix. My alternative is above, it is less convoluted but has the same meaning.

Note that the link for Austrian Silesia is now to a page on "Czech Silesia". The link should be to the Silesia page. -- MikeKr 06:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

you changed the biography, NOT the INTRODUCTION, I am fine with those changes Nahabedere 07:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

At his time the common label was "Czech Germans", "Deutschboehme", "cessti Nemci", one of two major ethnics in Czech lands. Austrian meant then Lower/Upper Austria inhabitant. Biographies of Mendel exist and they could answer this question better. Pavel Vozenilek 12:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mendel was NOT austrian, he was completely czech (born in czech teritory, education mainly in czech teritory, experiments in czech teritory, czech surname, he spoke mainly czech). I hope to do not see again that lie! At that time the Austria-Hungary had teritories from current Italy, Czech Republic, Germany, Slovakia, Slovenja, Croatia, Ukraine, Poland, Rumania and so on...therefore at that time born in the teritory of the old Austria-Hungary did NOT mean to be austrian --83.224.231.82 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)RSW

As I say above, I would call him Czech too (or Czech German if to be precise). But, he did not speak mainly Czech and his surname is not Czech.--Jirka6 (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Mendel was not Austrian!

All of you are forgoting one important think: AUSTRIA-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE! My great great grandfather was born there, that doesnt make him Hungarian! Please see article about Austria-Hungarian empire. It was NOT only Austria and Hungaria. Other nationality were also living in this empire and other lands were also included in this empire. Czech lands is one of them for example.

I don't see no reason why using "25 names" of the city he was born in as they go in the history. Use cotemporaly name, with proper link. Reader can always click on that name of that, or any other city, and read history of that city and name.

I have been seing this a lot here at wiki. Seems like German or Austrian trying to push their agenda. Let me tell you this for once: Czech Republic is not part of Austria anymore! Not since 1918. We are not your peasants! Get over it finaly!

71.99.127.141 (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Old discussion but... Mendel was dead before 1918... so we don't use what he would be considered in today's nationality. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we may discuss about whether Mendel was German, Czech-German or Czech, but he definitely was not Austrian! Because using that logic, everyone born in Austrian empire would be Austrian regardless of the place of born and mother tongue... and that's an obvious nonsence. --82.150.162.6 (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Using this logic, historically all the people from Great Britain's colonies were British, so there would be no historical "Australians", "Canadians", and among the most influential Brits is probably George Washington, right? And Daniel O'Connell one of the most influential people in Irish history, was not Irish but a Brit. Please do not forget that Habsburgs didn't rule Silesia (where Mendel was born) and Moravia (where he died) as archdukes of Austria neither as emperors of Austria, but from the position of Czech kings (kings of Bohemia). Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesuit priest

<!-- I could not substantiate that Mendel was ever ordained as a Jesuit priest. It appears, instead, that he was an Augustinian which is not the same, so I struck the following text. --> In 1847 he was ordained as a Jesuit priest

I removed the above from the text since it looks unsightly. Anyone have a source? David D. (Talk) 19:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Mendel is probably the MOST FAMOUS AUGUSTINIAN of the last two centuries because of his genetic work. He was the Abbott of the Augustinian Monastery in Brno, (modern Czech Republic). He WAS NOT A JESUIT!!!!!!! Not every smart priest has to be a Jesuit. Just a lot of them. I have added the linkCor Unum 10:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK folks, Father Gregor Mendel was ordained a Roman Catholic Priest in 1847. He dedicated his life and studies to God. I can't believe that this is not acknowledged in the record on wikipedia nor is it mentioned on google celebration of his birthday. sited: Catholic Encyclopedia 1913. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.70.245 (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Google Logo

On 20/07/2011 following was displayed as the google logo - http://www.google.com.au/logos/2011/gregormendel11-hp.jpg --Dr DBW (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's advertising; inappropriate for wikipedia; removed. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2012

Please tell the year this essay was written. Ex. "Gregor Mendel". (2009)

99.64.123.128 (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. What do you want me to do? I don't understand. If you're talking about adding extra information, please find it yourself and re-open this edit request, because unfortunately that's not what this template's for. Cheers --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 00:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

More Pictures in the Gallery

Currently, I am researching more about genetics to get ready for Biology next year, which brought me to this article. When I checked the gallery, though, I thought that the pictures were quite few. I already searched for the pictures that I needed for my research, but I want to suggest for people to add more pictures with references here... just for future needs of others.

That's just my opinion, though. If majority decide that this is unnecessary, then that will also be okay for me. I was just posting this for people to at least consider. Thanks. QueenQuorra _Consult 11:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting link

• Mendel in Darwin's Shadow, by David Allen at Macroevolution.net is an interesting read which appears valid, why remove it? . . dave souza, talk 06:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Without going into details of the article and without having anything to the merit of your question, I would only like to point out that an article which deals with what had influenced Mendel and which totally omits Johann Karl Nestler, a teacher at Olomouc who spent years researching and publishing on issues of hereditary traits (although due to his focus in sheep never got so far as Mendel with the plants) partially also at time when Mendel was there seems to be incomplete. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2013

Punnett (1905) is the separate republication as a booklet of 65pp of an entry in Encyclopaedia Britannica and so differs considerably from the subsequent works Punnett published under the same title. Perhaps the source as an entry in EB11, vol. 18 should be noted (as it is, for instance, in W. B. Provine, Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology Science and Its Conceptual Foundations (2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1989), p. 25).

129.96.121.150 (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is no longer protected. RudolfRed (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Mendel's work on Hieracium is missing

Mendel's work with Hieracium should be discussed on this page. One of the species that he chose is apomictic, and it produced a very different pattern of inheritance from the pea experiments. Nogler, G.A. (2006). "The lesser-known Mendel: His experiments on Hieracium". Genetics. 172 (1): 1–6. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I came to this page to find out more about the Hawkweed business - as I remember the story, Mendel wrote to Prof. Nägeli (the big man in the relevant area of biology at the time), and was given the very unfortunate advice to try to replicate his findings in Hawkweed. It has even been suggested that this was a deliberate bum steer, but this seems very improbable to me.

The Wikipedia article on Nägeli has a very little bit about Nägeli/Mendel correspondence. 120.18.132.179 (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Removals, Edits, and Possible misinformation

"An Austrian Empire's scientist" ? How about "an Austro-Hungarian scientist"? Are these articles written by adults?

Goodness gracious heavens to Betsy me, by George!

1:3 ratio

In the intro it is written that the green phenotype appears with a 1:3 ratio at the 2nd generation. However, it is actually a 1:4 ratio, since the peas have to get independently a (Green) allele from both parents. The odds are so 1/2*1/2=1/4. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Experiments_on_plant_hybridization — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dick tektiv (talk • contribs) 13:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Known For...

In the little info box at the top right, suggest rephrasing the "Known For": instead of "discovering genetics" how about "early discoveries in genetics" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.45.48 (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Gregor Mendel Institute

Is it possble to add the Gregor Mendel Institute as a web link? http://www.gmi.oeaw.ac.at/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.94.130 (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hynčice

Vražné-Hynčice, district of Nový Jičín

Removals

Was there a good reason to remove the stub of his biography? Dennis

Possible misinformation

Mendel sending info to Darwin

I'm pretty sure he sent a copy of his papers to Darwin. :) I'm pretty sure Darwin got the copy and ignored it; however, I don't believe Darwin obtain Mendel's name from references at all. --Cyberman 15:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I am researching a book by Anton Kerner von Marilaun, the eminent botanist. In the 2000 book, The Monk in the Garden, Robin Marintz Henig states:

"Kerner attended Franz Unger's lectures in Vienna at the same time Mendel did. In 1875 Kerner would begin a famous set of experiments. By transplanting lowland plants to alpine habitats, he was able to prove that altitude-related changes in the plants were not transmitted to offspring planted back in the lowlands. Kerner focused on highly variable plants in his search for the source of speciation, and he apparently saw little relevance in the monk's work with the stable garden pea. Nor did he show any interest in Mendel's career, although the two had crossed paths many times in Vienna. When a copy of Mendel's reprint [sent to a number of eminent authorities by Mendel] was recovered from Kerner's library after his death, the pages were uncut...Clearly the professor had never bothered to look at it."

"Another uncut reprint was found in the library of Charles Darwin, so Mendel must have sent him a copy, too. But even if Darwin had taken the time to cut through the folds...[he] had been exposed to the work of Charles Naudin, who reached many of the same conclusions that Mendel had - and he had not been especially impressed. "He cannot, I think, have reflected much on the subject, he once observed about Naudin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KernerFan (talk • contribs) 23:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect history linkage?

Why is Lysenko linked to Mendel? Isn't that like linking Mengele to Christiaan Barnard.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.114.98 (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 

Mendel's name

Okay - so which is it? Gregor Johann Mendel or Johann Gregor Mendel? - Haukurth 2 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)

Isn't Mendel generally a Jewish name? Is he from a family of Jewish converts? (edit by 24.36.112.49)

Nothing mentions it. His parents were piss poor farmers from a willage who put their son to study priesthood to give him better life. Very detailed biography about his life was written by Vítězslav Orel (published in several languages, including English). I didn't read it but maybe it could give more info. Pavel Vozenilek 12:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Orel (p.38) writes that according to A Schindler (as cited in Krizenecky 1965) the name appeared in the family around 1550. They were probably fugitives from Wuerttemberg. Mendel's mother and father were from Hyncice, where most of the inhabitants were ethnic Germans; father's family was from Veseli where most of the inhabitants were ethnic Czechs. Schindler claims that about 3/4 of Mendel's ancestors were of German origin and 1/4 of Czech origin. Orel does not say anything about Jewish origin. The form of the name changed depending whether the parish priest was German or Czech.--Jirka6 20:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The name Mendel is Slavonic and corresponds to the Latin Ides - the 15th day of the month in the ancient Slavonic lunar calendar. Its interesting that Mendel who bears a Czech surname, spoke Czech from birth and was born in the Czech province of Moravia, is portrayed as an ethnic German. How utterly stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.36.246 (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the onomastics dictionaries I have, Mendel is originally a given name contracted from a dithemtic given name beginning with Mend-. The surname originated as a patronym. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Dates of birth & baptism

Mendel's birthdate: 22 July (baptised on 24 July): http://www.mendel-museum.org/eng/1online/room1.htm + lecture at Masaryk University in Brno OMaj 23:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

We have reputable sources for both dates. Can we resolve this is, or do we need to state both dates in the article? Please discuss here before changing things again. Awolf002 18:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The 22 July is date of his baptism. That explains, why it's often mentioned. But I really don't know where the date 20 July came from. I only consider the Mendel Museum to be credible and up-to-date source. OMaj 18:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that "on record" is the day of his baptism (July 22). Does anybody have a copy of his autobiography? Maybe that will have some info on the birthday... Awolf002 18:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the date should be July 22. According to van der Pas (1972, The date of Gregor Mendel's birth Folia Mendeliana, 7) the date is Julvfnmcnnnnnnnnnnnn

y 22. For example, Orel (1996, Gregor Mendel: the first geneticist. Oxford University Press, page 36) writes:

Mendel was born 22 July 1822 [..] The entry in the baptismal register of the village church gives his date of birth as 20 July, but Mendel himself always stated that he was born on 22 July, and the biographical sources accept this date (van der Pas 1972) [the reference given above].

So I think, the article should say July 22, with a note that the baptismal register says something July 20, but that Mendel himself used July 22. --Jirka6 03:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I will change the birth date to probably July 22 adding the above information. I think both published book by Orel and an article by van der Pas carry more weight than a web page.--Jirka6 00:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would only object if the baptismal record is a transcribed copy. Church baptismal entries are as close to real-time as a birth certificate is. And remember things such as education levels of parents, etc. How many anniversaries have been forgotten or misremembered. I would say use the primal document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BinaryBitFlipper (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This section needs correction

Hybridizing experiments

In 1854, Mendel started his hybridizing experiments. He focused on the origin of plant variability. He tested the purities of selected varieties of Pisum and then began experiments with artificial fertilization. Mendel's experimental data illustrates that he must have been tested 28,000 Pisum plants during the years 1856-63.

           == Should read... ==

In 1854, Mendel started his hybridizing experiments. He focused on the origin of plant variability. He tested the purities of selected varieties of Pisum and then began experiments with artificial fertilization. Mendel's experimental data illustrates that he must have tested 28,000 Pisum plants during the years 1856-63.

           == Removed the word "been" ==

BinaryBitFlipper (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)binarybitflipper

confirmation of Bees?

Do we have a citation on his working with bees (and their being too vicious)? RJFJR (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

An unfortunate choice of insect, at least for genetic studies, as male bees are haploid organisms. Whatever Mendel learned from his pea plants, much of it wouldn't apply here! WHPratt (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

One author has documented their vain attempt to verify this factoid: http://www.figureconcord.com/ublog/archives/003338.html . --adonovan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.228.137 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree: that "vicious" has to go. All the references I have found, e.g. Breeding the honeybee in captive conditions from the US Department of Agriculture, indicate that Mendel's problem was identifying the "parent" as the matings took place in free flight. No serious book suggests that he failed because the offspring were too dangerous, but some web pages, including one from the National Museum of Health and Medicine, do include the much-copied phrase "so vicious that they stung everybody around for miles and had to be destroyed". --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Afterthought: "after the pea experiments" may also be wrong; while researching this I found several sources suggesting that Mendel may have studied bees at the same time, or even before, his plant work. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've also looked for evidence of 'vicious' bees and can't find anything sourced that stands up (while researching a book on peas). Given the above findings, and lack of any countercase having been made. I suggest it is time for someone to remove the parenthetical vicious comment. Who can does this? The page is 'semi-protected'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.120.147 (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

*You are all so correct. He most probably did not produce supervicious bees. His experiments were never recorded. In fact he would have failed utterly, as WHPratt noted. Cross-breeding even the best-natured bees would be impossible, not only because of their aggressiveness, but also of complex genetics. So I revise the entire info. Chhandama (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Silesian vs. Moravian

Mendel was just born in Silesia, a stone throw from the Moravian border, but was baptized in Moravia and lived all his life in Moravia. He said he felt as a "German-speaking Moravian," so I replaced the earlier sources, which only claimed he was born in Silesia, and some Wikipedians thought it meant he was Silesian. No, he wasnt Silesian, and that is WP:Original research.--Liongrande (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The Mechanism of Allele-Selection

Mendel assumed that allele-selection occurs in gamete-production. That it might occur at fertilisation seems not to have occurred to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidauty (talk • contribs) 16:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2015

Citations 9 and 10 do not lead to a working webpage. This page needs to be edited. 2602:304:B01B:8C10:F0E5:D45F:9FB7:D9B7 (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Nationality

Although Mendel lived in the Austro-Hungarian empire after 1867, this does not mean he was an Austro-Hungarian citizen—because nobody was. See R. J. W. Evans, Austria, Hungary, and the Habsburgs (Oxford, 2006), p. 270; Ulrike von Hirschhausen, "From imperial inclusion to national exclusion: citizenship in the Habsburg monarchy and in Austria 1867–1923" European Review of History 16 4 (2009): 551–73; and also this paper by Ira, Sušová and Krocová. Srnec (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Genotype or Phenotype?

The insertbox showing the breeding process mendel used is correct. But isn't the term used to desecribe the traits suggested by the gene combinations GenoType and not Phenotype? Phenotype is the actual displayed features, and cannot be predicted by a punnet square (because phenotype is observation, not prediction). Maybe the caption should be edited.

True, 'traits' might be a better term to use. That or 'character[istics]', which is what's used in the original paper's translation. S eoJ (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr.Mendel

this is a good article about mendel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelsea-esquire (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please upload more detailed and accurate information about Mendel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.189.155.44 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This page sounds like an argument

Like too many wikipedia articles, this page looks like an argument between opposite points of views nobody really cares about. To a reader who wants to know about Mendel it is not so relevant if scientists independently rediscovered Mendel's work or not, and if consensus cannot be reached neither claim should be made. Please guys, act like grown-ups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.192.171 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gregor Mendel. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mendel-museum.com/eng/1online/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mendel-museum.com/eng/1online/room2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016

Hello,

This line in the current page: "He became a friar because it enabled him to obtain an education without having to pay for it himself [7]" is overly reductive. The truth is that there is no objective evidence as to why Mendel chose his vocation as priest. It cannot be said that it merely was due to the prospect of continuing his education "without having to pay for it himself." In light of his being made Abbot of the monastery, one may speculate that he was a priest with a special pastoral charism ("Abbot," after all, is derived from "father").

I see that the typical format of these requests is to "change X to Y," but I think it's in the best interest to omit this line entirely because as of now it adds a detail that isn't verifiable or seemingly true. It would be too much to add any detail into why he professed vows in the Augustinian order. It is more objective to simply mention that he indeed professed vows in the Augustinian order. Unless there is some very good source specifying why, there is no point in mentioning. To mention anything seems inaccurate, among other things.

The Catholic encyclopedia (a resource that would've been interested in his priesthood) doesn't mention anything specific either:

"At the former place one of his teachers was an Augustinian, and, whether post or propter hoc, at the end of his period of study at the gymnasium Mendel applied to be admitted as a novice in the Abbey of St. Thomas at Brünn, commonly known as the 'Königskloster'" - From the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10180b.htm

SamuelAidan (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  03:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic ancestry

Previous edits claimed Mendel as an ethnic Moravian/implied Czech. The references cited were in Czech or blanked web pages. As a well researched and documented book shows, Mendel had ethnic German ancestors. The info has been changed. Tapered (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2016

In the Section "Experiments on Plant Hybridization", Para 1, Sentence 5 Please change "Between 1856 and 1863 Mendel cultivated and tested some 28,000 plants, majority of which were pea plants" to "Between 1856 and 1863 Mendel and two assistants cultivated and tested some 28,000 plants, majority of which were pea plants". The original implies that Gregor Mendel did this work on his own. This is not credible given the work involved in making a single cross. This minor change will correct this.

Reference, Rice,S.A., Infobase Publishing, 2009, Encyclopedia of Evolution, , 267 'The monastery provided Mendel with two full-time assistants to help him with his research.'

Not necessary. Scientific achievements are not normally credited to the scientist's helpers, assistants, or students, as long as the research is owned by the scientist. In this case, it was Mendel's alone. And it is not particularly interesting to know some anonymous assistants. Chhandama (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just that there is a common misperception that Mendel did all the work himself in his spare time. Have even encountered this in books.

184.149.40.84 (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have the same concern as the original poster. Wikipedia is used widely as a reference by students in primary and secondary education who would certainly misconstrue the statement that "Mendel cultivated and tested 28,000 plants". I think the suggested edit does no harm and will prevent a common misunderstanding. -99.231.195.170 (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

--98.170.255.232 (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Misleading statement about crosses.

In the second paragraph we have the sentence "With seed color, he showed that when a yellow pea and a green pea were bred together their offspring plant was always yellow". This is only true if the yellow peas and green peas are true-breeding. If the yellow peas are not true-breeding you might get some green peas. I don't know how this should be edited because it probably would be too early in the article to introduce true-breeding (heterozygous,homozygous). Maybe we can defer the example to further down in the article and include the term true-breeding. 23.91.131.1 (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2017

From

He became a friar because it enabled him to obtain an education without having to pay for it himself.

To He joined the Augustinian Friars and Becoming a Friar enabled him to obtain an education without paying for it

Since the way its worded makes it seem as if it was the only reason he became a Friar was to get free education 123.231.124.31 (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Interestingly, the current cited source for this statement does support this view. read pages 19-21 which are available through google books preview here . Cannolis (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

§§§§gregor mendel was a boss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.246.18.10 (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gregor Mendel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714072635/http://www.mendel-museum.com/eng/8garden/ to http://www.mendel-museum.com/eng/8garden/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202002119/http://papa.indstate.edu/amcbt/volume_27/v27-2.pdf to http://papa.indstate.edu/amcbt/volume_27/v27-2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021181104/http://www.mendel-museum.com/eng/1online/room3.htm to http://www.mendel-museum.com/eng/1online/room3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090620175253/http://brnonow.com/2009/02/university-to-rebuild-mendels-greenhouse/ to http://brnonow.com/2009/02/university-to-rebuild-mendels-greenhouse/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080419020741/http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Fankhauser/Travel/Berlin/for_web/Mendel_in_Brno.html to http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Fankhauser/Travel/Berlin/for_web/Mendel_in_Brno.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2017

it is veronica insted of veronika 94.214.40.39 (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Misleading text in 'Experiments on plant hybridization' section

Existing text says: "This study showed that, when true-breeding different varieties were crossed to each other (e.g., tall plants fertilized by short plants), one in four pea plants had purebred recessive traits, two out of four were hybrids, and one out of four were purebred dominant."

This appears to be skipping over a generation; all plants from a cross of two true-breeding varieties would be hybrids, the results given (1 pure dominant, 2 hybrid, 1 pure recessive) would be from the cross of two hybrids. Not sure what's the best way to word an edit though.

Zaluzianskya (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC) zaluzianskya 21:33 7 Jan 2017 (GMT)

Agreed. CHANGE "This study showed that, when true-breeding different varieties were crossed to each other (e.g., tall plants fertilized by short plants), one in four pea plants had purebred recessive traits, two out of four were hybrids, and one out of four were purebred dominant." TO "This study showed that, when different true-breeding varieties were crossed (e.g. tall plants to short plants), the offspring showed only one of the traits (tall) rather than being a blend of parental traits. When these offspring were crossed, the "hidden" trait reappeared in 1/4 of the offspring. He interpreted this as showing (in modern terms) that the quarter of this second generation that were short had the pure-bred recessive trait, while half the offspring were hybrids but showed only the dominant trait (tall), and the remaining quarter were pure-bred for the dominant trait."

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2018

{ seaf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8200:1580:5040:35ED:BA0F:6EC (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected request

 The sentence   "He became a friar in part because it enabled him to obtain an education without having to pay for it himself. " is not supported by evidence.

The only information about his reasons to become a friar are written in Mendel's autobiography which reads, in Mendel's own words, and speaking in third person "...he felt himself compelled to step into a station of life, which would free him from the bitter struggle for existence. His circumstances decided his vocational choice. ". Mendel does NOT say that he became a friar to study. He says he became a friar, at least in part, to support himself. Very different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomais (talk • contribs) 16:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nihlus 20:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2018

Life and career section has unnecessary repetition and is disordered chronologically.

Recommend first paragraph - amended to read:

Mendel was born into a German-speaking family in Hynčice (Heinzendorf bei Odrau in German), at the Moravian-Silesian border, Austrian Empire (now a part of the Czech Republic). He was the son of Anton and Rosine (Schwirtlich) Mendel and had one older sister, Veronika, and one younger, Theresia. They lived and worked on a farm which had been owned by the Mendel family for at least 130 years (the house where Mendel was born is now a museum devoted to Mendel). During his childhood, Mendel worked as a gardener and studied beekeeping. As a young man, he attended the gymnasium in Opava (called Troppau in German). He had to take four months off during his gymnasium studies due to illness. From 1840 to 1843, he studied practical and theoretical philosophy and physics at the Philosophical Institute of the University of Olomouc, taking another year off because of illness. When Mendel entered the Faculty of Philosophy, the Department of Natural History and Agriculture was headed by Johann Karl Nestler who conducted extensive research of hereditary traits of plants and animals, especially sheep. However, Mendel struggled financially to pay for his studies, and Theresia gave him her dowry. Later he helped support her three sons, two of whom became doctors.

Recommend second paragraph - amended to read:

Upon recommendation of his physics teacher Friedrich Franz, Mendel entered the religious life. This was done in part to enable him to obtain an education without having to pay for it himself. As the son of a struggling farmer, the monastic life, in his words, spared him the "perpetual anxiety about a means of livelihood." He was given the name Gregor (Řehoř in Czech) when he joined the Augustinian friars of St Thomas's Abbey in Brno (called Brünn in German).

Recommend amendment to third paragraph - deletion of following sentences:

When Mendel entered the Faculty of Philosophy, the Department of Natural History and Agriculture was headed by Johann Karl Nestler who conducted extensive research of hereditary traits of plants and animals, especially sheep.

Upon recommendation of his physics teacher Friedrich Franz, Mendel entered the Augustinian St Thomas's Abbey in Brno (called Brünn in German) and began his training as a priest. Born Johann Mendel, he took the name Gregor upon entering religious life.

Te Karere (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

References

" results of Mendel's inheritance study in hawkweeds was unlike his results for peas"

Contributions -> other experiments -> para 2 " results of Mendel's inheritance study in hawkweeds was unlike his results for peas" grammatrical error: should read " results of Mendel's inheritance study in hawkweeds were unlike his results for peas" as "results" is plural.

212.159.59.5 (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The Mendelian Paradox

The first sentence under this heading states:

In 1936, R.A. Fisher, a prominent statistician and population geneticist, reconstructed Mendel's experiments, analyzed results from the F2 (second filial) generation and found the ratio of dominant to recessive phenotypes (e.g. green versus yellow peas; round versus wrinkled peas) to be implausibly and consistently too close to the expected ratio of 3 to 1.

I am suggesting a change from "green versus yellow peas" to "yellow versus green peas". In the second paragraph of the introduction, the author states, "the green trait, which seems to have vanished in the first filial generation, is recessive and the yellow is dominant."

As a former biology teacher, I know that this statement is true, consistent with all the literature on Mendel's experiments with pea plants. The average lay person probably thinks that the green seed color is dominant, based on peas that are grown and consumed today. However, it is also true that when it comes to POD color, green is dominant and yellow is recessive. This makes things a little more confusing than they would otherwise be.

The change I am suggesting would be consistent with the order of the adjectives preceding it ("dominant to recessive") as well as the adjectives following it ("round versus wrinkled peas").

Thank you for considering my suggestion.

Mark W. Lining 317-599-0079 Liningm (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Source: http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/lessons/Genetics/Phenotypes.html

Simple Typo

Just a simple typo: the sentence, "The majority of his published works was related to meteorology," should read, "The majority of his published works were related to meteorology."

See, for example, https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/majority-of-singular-noncount-nouns-usage-minority.

Thanks, just updated the article. James Martindale (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Correct typo

The word "nineteen" appears where it clearly means "19th". Delsie'sedits (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Date of birth vs. date of baptism

Please verify WarwolfXR (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Date of birth is wrong it is 22nd july and here it is written 20 july

117.220.96.48 (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

There is no evidence that Gregor Mendel was an Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, Margraviate of Moravia. He worked in the monastery gardens. This is why he was able to observe the characteristics passed on to the next generation in plants. AS7347 (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Run n Fly (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

What was the use of trihybrid cross

Why did he prove with this cross 2402:3A80:13BE:9B33:BA6:9CCE:1B5C:B50E (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Exhumation and DNA test

In 2022 Mendel's coffin was exhumated to conduct a DNA test. It showed diabetes, heart problems, and kidney disease, and a gene that has been associated with epilepsy and neurological issues. He suffered throughout his life from some sort of a psychological or neurological disorder that caused him to have very severe nervous breakdowns. (source: npr.org) 151.68.239.33 (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2023

In the Sierra Nevada of California, Mount Mendel is named for Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian friar, who is known as the "father of modern genetics". Other nearby mountains in the group include Mount Darwin, Mount Fiske, Mount Haeckel, Mount Huxley, Mount Spencer, Mount Wallace, and Mount Lamarck. 2605:59C8:31DF:E710:898E:B976:3C54:8055 (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lemonaka (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2023

Mention how mendel payed for his own education as a child. 24.90.234.82 (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2023

JOHAN GREGOR MENDEL WAS CZECH, NOT AUSTRIAN!!!!! 2A00:1028:83A6:2242:B04F:B0AF:1426:D615 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Sirdog (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)