Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T06:09:21.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XXXVII.—Mendelian Action on Differentiated Sex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2014

D. Berry Hart
D. Berry Hart
Affiliation:
Surgeons' Hall, Edinburgh Laboratory of the Royal College of Physicians
Get access

(abstract)

It has long been known that the male and the female human genital tract contain not only organs characteristic of their sex proper, but also certain parts of the opposite sex in a less developed but yet perfectly definite form. Thus the female genital tract is made up of, not only its characteristic organs, the ovaries, tubes, uterus, etc., but also the epoophoron (parovarium) and its duct, the equivalent of the epididymis and ductus epididymis of the testis. In the same way, the human male has his characteristic sexual organs and also the appendix testis and prostatic utricle, the representatives of the fimbriated end of the Fallopian tube and of the lower end of the vaginal tract (hymen mainly, but varying).

Type
Proceedings
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 29 , 1909 , pp. 607 - 618
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1909

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature

Adami, J. G., “The Principles of Pathology,” Oxford Medical Publications, 1909, Oxford, Henry Frowde.Google Scholar
Adami remarks, apropos of the Differentiation of Sex: “The existence in the normal male or female of useless rudiments of parts characteristic of the opposite sex, must not be taken as an indication that man is descended from an originally hermaphrodite ancestry.…Rather such rudiments are, in Mendelian terminology, recessive features, due to the origin of the fertilised ovum from both male and female germ-plasma” (pp. 257–8).Google Scholar
Ahlfeld, , Die Missbildungen des Menschen, I. Abschnitt, Leipzig, Gronow, 1880.Google Scholar
Ballantyne, J. W., Antenatal Pathology and Hygiene, the Fœtus and Embryo, A Manual of, Edinburgh, Green & Sons, 1902 and 1904. Two vols.Google Scholar
Bateson, W., Mendel's Principles of Heredity, Cambridge, University Press, 1909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, , Materials for the Study of Variation, London, Macmillan & Co., 1894.Google Scholar
Bateson, , The Methods and Scope of Genetics, Cambridge, 1908.Google Scholar
In discussing Doncaster's results as to the crossing of varieties of the currant-moth, Professor Bateson remarks: “If we are right, as I am strongly inclined to believe, we get a glimpse of the significance of the popular idea that in certain respects daughters are apt to resemble their fathers, and sons their mothers—a phenomenon which is certainly sometimes to be observed” (p. 44, Genetics, etc.).Google Scholar
Beard, , “The Germ-cells,” Part I., Raja Batis, Part I. contd., Journ. of Anat. and Phys., 1904, pp. 82 and 341.Google Scholar
Boveri, , “Befruchtung,” Merkel und Bonnet's Ergebnisse, vol. i., 385–585.Google Scholar
Carey, , “Report of Two Testicular Teratomata, with a Review of the Recent Literature,” Johns Hopkins Hosp. Bull., vol. xiii., No. 140, 1902.Google Scholar
Castle, W. E., “The Heredity of Sex,” Ball. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harrard, vol. xl., No. 4, 1903.Google Scholar
Cunningham, J. T., “The Heredity of Secondary Sexual Characters in relation to Hormones: A Theory of the Heredity of Somatogenic Characters, Arch, für Entwickelungsmechanik der Organismen (Roux'), Bd. xxvi., Heft 3. Castle's theory is considered and discussed.Google Scholar
Darbishire, , “Mendelism,” Science Progress, No. 7, January 1908. Castle's theory is explained and discussed.Google Scholar
Darwin, C, Origin of Species and Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, London, Murray.Google Scholar
Doncaster, “Sex Inheritance in the Moth Abraxas grossulariata and its var. lacticolor,” Rep. Evol. Comm., iv. p. 41, 1908.Google Scholar
Durham, and Marryat, D. C. E., “Inheritance of Sex in Canaries,” Rep. Evol. Comm., iv., 1908.Google Scholar
Eimer, , Organic Evolution, London, Macmillan & Co., 1890, J. T. Cunningham's translation.Google Scholar
Eigenmann, , “The Precocious Segregation of the Sex-cells Cymatogaster aggregatus,” Journ. of Morph., vol. v. pp. 481–492.Google Scholar
Galton, , Natural Inheritance, Loudon, Macmillan & Co., 1889.Google Scholar
Geddes, and Thomson, , Evolution of Sex, London, Scott, 1901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, , Berry, D., “Nature and Cause of Descent of Testes,” Journ. of Anat. and Phys., 1909; also “Morphology of the Human Urinogenital Tract,” Journ. of Anat. and Phys. and E.O.S. Trans., 1900–1901.Google Scholar
Hartung, , Ueber einem Fall von Mamma accessoria, Erlangen, 1875, Druck der Univ. Buch Druckerei, E. Th. Jacob.Google Scholar
Ingalls, , “Beschreibung eines menschlichen Embryos von 4-9 mm.,” Arch.fur Nuk. v. Anat., Bd. lxx.Google Scholar
Kempe, V., Schwalbe's Jahresbericht, xxi. p. 632, for a short summary.Google Scholar
Leichtenstern, , Virch. Arch. f. Anat. und Path., 1878, p. 222.Google Scholar
Lock, , Recent Progress in the Study of Variation, Heredity, and Evolution, London, Murray, 1906.Google Scholar
Lotsy, J. P., Vorlesungen über Descendenztheorien, Jena, Fischer, 1906. This is a most comprehensive and valuable work.Google Scholar
M'Clung, , “The Accessory Chromosome-Sex Determinant?” Biol. Bull., iii., 1902, p. 43.Google Scholar
Mitchell-Bruce, , Journ. of Anat. and Phys., 1879, xiii. p. 425.Google Scholar
Mendel, , “Versüche über Pflanzen Hybriden veih. naturf. Verein in Brünn” (English translation by Bateson, in Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc, xxvi., 1901).Google Scholar
Ohkubo, Sakaye, “Zur Kenntniss der Embryome des Hodens,” Roux' Archiv f. Entwickelungsmechanik der Organism., Bd. xxvi. Heft. 4.Google Scholar
Owen, , On Parthenogenesis, London, Van Voorst, 1849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przibram, , Experimental Zoology, Part I., “Embryogeny,” Cambridge, University Press, 1908. A most valuable monograph.Google Scholar
Punnett, , Mendelism, Cambridge, Bowes & Bowes, 1907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quain, , Anatomy, vol. i., Bryce on “Embryology,” London, 1908.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J., “A Case of Embryoma occurring in the Mediastinum,” Jour, of Obst, and Gynœc. of the British Empire, iv. p. 65.Google Scholar
Sabin, , Amer. Jour, of Anat., vol. i.Google Scholar
Schlagenhaufer, , Wien. klin. Woeh., 1902, Nos. 22 and 23.Google Scholar
Shattock, E. G., “Ovarian Teratoma,” Erasmus Wilson Lecture, 1908, Lancet, i., 1908, p. 479.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. Bland, Evolution and Disease, London, Walter Scott, 1890.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. Arthur, Heredity, London, John Murray, 1908. A great storehouse of facts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weismann, , The Evolution Theory (Thomson's, J. A. trans.), London, Arnold, 1904.Google Scholar
Whetham, , The Recent Development of Physiological Science, London, Murray, 1904.Google Scholar
Wiedersheim, , Vergleichende Anat. der Wirbelthiere, Sechste Auflage, Jena, 1906.Google Scholar
Jones, Wood, “The Nature of the Malformations of the Rectum and Urogenital Passages,” Brit. Med. Journal, Dec. 17, 1904.Google Scholar
Woods, F. A., “Origin and Migration of the Germ-cells in Acanthias,” Amer. Jour, of Anat., i. 307. His conclusion is “that the germ-cells in the dog-fish are not developed from somewhat specialised cells of the bod}’, but that a few undifferentiated cells of the earliest type are taken out and passed on until the new individual is formed “ (p. 318).Google Scholar