K. Pearson to E. Nettleship, 24th Dec. 1908.- External URL
- Correspondence Details
-
Sent From (Definite): Karl PearsonSent To (Definite): Edward NettleshipDate: 24 Dec 1908
- Current Holder(s)
-
Holder (Definite): University College London: Special Collections
- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
Sent fromKarl Pearson
24 Dec 1908
Description:
‘...
... I feel very unclear as to what biologists mean when they definitively assert that an albino is perfect when there is a complete absence of epiblastic pigment. So far no one has demonstrated the existence of such a human albino, although very possibly he does exist. You can’t work with such a definition, and if as we are told, partial albinism is a “pathological state” differing entirely from “perfect albinism”, which follows other & quite definite rules of inheritance, how are we to distinguish the two? Your introductory words seem to assert that the “perfect albino” is something distinguishable, and I think it will be seized upon by our critics. You say take him and you will find no pigment; my view would be if you find no pigment then you can call him a ‘perfect albino’ if you like....
...’
-
Sent toEdward Nettleship
24 Dec 1908
Description:
‘...
... I feel very unclear as to what biologists mean when they definitively assert that an albino is perfect when there is a complete absence of epiblastic pigment. So far no one has demonstrated the existence of such a human albino, although very possibly he does exist. You can’t work with such a definition, and if as we are told, partial albinism is a “pathological state” differing entirely from “perfect albinism”, which follows other & quite definite rules of inheritance, how are we to distinguish the two? Your introductory words seem to assert that the “perfect albino” is something distinguishable, and I think it will be seized upon by our critics. You say take him and you will find no pigment; my view would be if you find no pigment then you can call him a ‘perfect albino’ if you like....
...’
-
