Abstract
MAY I support Prof. Alan Boyden's plea1 that parthenogenesis should not be classified as asexual reproduction? The habit of doing so presumably arose because the text-book definition of sexual reproduction excludes anything which does not involve fusion of gametes; but such a reliance on a definition instead of on the facts implies a degree of philosophical realism which has no proper place in science.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
References
Boyden, A., Nature, 166, 820 (1950).
Pirie, M. W., “The Meaninglessness of the Terms Life and Living” in “Perspectives in Biochemistry”, Ed. J. Needham and D. E. Green (Cambridge, 1937).
Mayr, E., “Systematics and the Origin of Species” (London, 1942).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
YAPP, W. Definitions in Biology. Nature 167, 160 (1951). https://doi.org/10.1038/167160a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/167160a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.