This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Berlan J.-P. 2018 Hybrid corn and the unsettled question of heterosis. J. Genet. 97, 1075–1082.
CIMMYT 1998 Book of abstracts. The genetics and exploitation of heterosis in crops. An international Symposium (ed. CIMMYT), Mexico.
Crow J. F. 1998 90 years ago: the beginning of hybrid maize. Genetics 148, 923–928.
De Vries H. 1907 Plant-breeding, comments on the experiments of Nilsson and Burbank. The Open Court Publishing, Chicago.
East E. M. 1909 The distinction between development and heredity in inbreeding. Am. Nat. 43, 173–181.
Evershed H. 1884 Improvement of the plants of the farm. J. Roy. Ag. Soc. 23, 371–381.
Jones D. F. 1944 Biographical memoir of Edward Murray East (1879–1938). Biog. Memoirs Natl. Acad. Sci. (Washington DC, USA, XXXIII). 217–242.
Shull G. H. 1908 The composition of a field of maize. Am. Breed. Assoc. Rept. IV, 296–301.
Shull G. H. 1909 A pure-line method in corn breeding. Am. Breed. Assoc. Rept. V, 51–59.
Shull G. H. 1909 Hybridization methods in corn breeding. Am. Breed. Assoc. Rept. VI, 63–72.
Shull G. H. 1948 What is “Heterosis”? Genetics 33, 439–446.
Shull G. H. 1952 Beginnings of the heterosis concept. In Heterosis, a record of researches directed toward explaining and utilizing the vigor of hybrids (ed. J. Gowen), Iowa State College Press, Ames, pp. 14–48.
Notes and acknowledgments
I stuck to the unfortunate habit of conflating hybrid vigour (a phenomenon) with a particular theory accounting for it (East’s 1909 ‘physiological stimulation due to heterozygosity’). Shull’s heterosis (1914, in Shull 1948) inaugurated this confusion that added a non-Mendelian mystery to the whole matter. How and why the conflation took place is a story in itself. Readers will find it in ‘Hybrid corn and the unsettled question of heterosis’, J. Genet. 2018, 97, 5, pp. 1075-1082. My book La planète des clones, La Lenteur: Vaour 2019, deals with the endless ‘anomalies’ (Thomas Kuhn) arising from the discordance between theory (exploiting the elusive heterosis) and practice (exploiting variation of populations) and offers a political economy overview of breeding since the Industrial Revolution to the so-called Gmos and Dolly. Last, these views are the result of a collective work. Richard Lewontin invited me, an economist, to develop what were mere intuitions about hybrid corn in his intellectually ebullient population genetics laboratory where even technical issues were cast in their proper philosophical, historical, epistemological and political economy context. There Diane Paul, historian of sciences, introduced me to her field and was supportive intellectually and morally, particularly during the discouraging last years when I realized how difficult it was to publish views running against the ongoing paradigm or dogma in countries where ‘hybrid corn’ is the iconic triumph of the genetic and agronomic establishment. Anything worthwhile I wrote is common and any mistake is mine.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Corresponding editor: Durgadas P. Kasbekar
This article is dedicated to Diane Paul.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Berlan, JP. Hybrid corn beyond heterosis: reading George Shull’s hybrid corn articles (1908–1909). J Genet 100, 72 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12041-021-01325-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12041-021-01325-y