next generation = nächste Generation This refers to the seeds appearing on the plants grown from the first “harvest”, i.e. F2 in modern genetic parlance (see p. 26, s. 5). While Mendel does not mention this explicitly, it is certain that this generation resulted from spontaneous self-fertilisation, and hence would bring to the fore recessive characters again, in analogy to the exeriments described in earlier sections. It is only in this step, that the genetic constitution of the “hybrid germ and pollen cells” are revealed in the first and third trials, since the dominant characters mask any recessives in F1.
had = müsste Bateson has “must”, Sherwood “would have”, introducing the clause by a “but” which is not there in the German original. We read musste for müsste instead. Since the first part of the sentence — which actually is a silent conjunction of two independent sentences, a frequent feature of Mendel’s paper — is in indicative past tense, one would expect the same grammatical form for the second part, i.e. musste. Müsste is conjunctive II, and thus represents the subjunctive mood that one would expect if Mendel was only formulating a hypothesis rather than reporting on experiments carried out (see s. 7, p. 9). It may be that Mendel vacillated between the two options when composing his essay. The manuscript has müsste too.
success = Erfolge See p. 7, s. 9.
next generation = nächste Generation This refers to the seeds appearing on the plants grown from the first “harvest”, i.e. F2 in modern genetic parlance (see p. 26, s. 5). While Mendel does not mention this explicitly, it is certain that this generation resulted from spontaneous self-fertilisation, and hence would bring to the fore recessive characters again, in analogy to the exeriments described in earlier sections. It is only in this step, that the genetic constitution of the “hybrid germ and pollen cells” are revealed in the first and third trials, since the dominant characters mask any recessives in F1.
had = müsste Bateson has “must”, Sherwood “would have”, introducing the clause by a “but” which is not there in the German original. We read musste for müsste instead. Since the first part of the sentence — which actually is a silent conjunction of two independent sentences, a frequent feature of Mendel’s paper — is in indicative past tense, one would expect the same grammatical form for the second part, i.e. musste. Müsste is conjunctive II, and thus represents the subjunctive mood that one would expect if Mendel was only formulating a hypothesis rather than reporting on experiments carried out (see s. 7, p. 9). It may be that Mendel vacillated between the two options when composing his essay. The manuscript has müsste too.