E. Nettleship to K. Pearson, 4th March 1907.- External URL
- Correspondence Details
-
Sent From (Definite): Edward NettleshipSent To (Definite): Karl PearsonDate: 4 Mar 1907
- Current Holder(s)
-
Holder (Definite): University College London: Special Collections
- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
Sent fromEdward Nettleship
4 Mar 1907
Description:
‘...
V. Bent & interchangability [sic] of inheritance. I don’t know his work & shall like to see it when convenient.
The idea that degeneracy or imperfection of disease &c. of some portion of a complex part of the body – e.g. the cerebro-spinal system – may appear as degeneracy &c. of a different part of the same system in the descendants is surely not at all new; the neurologists have spoken of hereditary neuroses for a long time, e.g. that one kind of instability, such as hysteria or migraine, may appear as epilepsy or mental derangement or disseminated sclerosis in another member of the family; & I think but cannot say with certainty that the same sort of position is true for different forms of “sclerotic” paralyses & perhaps other organic nerve-system diseases – all this of course subject to correction & pace Mott & other physicians.
I don’t know of anything systematic done on these same lines about the visual apparatus, but the notion has been in mind & more or less in conversation: I have for some years had “Family eye disease” as a heading in my index to include such cases of “varying” or “equivalent” inheritance. The subject is well worth digging at but is full of difficulties, I mean presents more sources of error than heredity of one & the same condition. Bollinger uses the terms “Ungleichartig” or “variiert” for what I incline to call “equivalent” or “dissimilar” heredity, his “gleichartig” being ordinary inheritance = transmission of the same disease.
...’
-
Sent toKarl Pearson
4 Mar 1907
Description:
‘...
V. Bent & interchangability [sic] of inheritance. I don’t know his work & shall like to see it when convenient.
The idea that degeneracy or imperfection of disease &c. of some portion of a complex part of the body – e.g. the cerebro-spinal system – may appear as degeneracy &c. of a different part of the same system in the descendants is surely not at all new; the neurologists have spoken of hereditary neuroses for a long time, e.g. that one kind of instability, such as hysteria or migraine, may appear as epilepsy or mental derangement or disseminated sclerosis in another member of the family; & I think but cannot say with certainty that the same sort of position is true for different forms of “sclerotic” paralyses & perhaps other organic nerve-system diseases – all this of course subject to correction & pace Mott & other physicians.
I don’t know of anything systematic done on these same lines about the visual apparatus, but the notion has been in mind & more or less in conversation: I have for some years had “Family eye disease” as a heading in my index to include such cases of “varying” or “equivalent” inheritance. The subject is well worth digging at but is full of difficulties, I mean presents more sources of error than heredity of one & the same condition. Bollinger uses the terms “Ungleichartig” or “variiert” for what I incline to call “equivalent” or “dissimilar” heredity, his “gleichartig” being ordinary inheritance = transmission of the same disease.
...’
-
