1. See, for example, D. Buican, Histoire de la génétique et de l'évolutionnisme en France (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1984); or, for a less thorough treatment, the articles by E. Boesiger, E. Mayr, and C. Limoges on the evolutionary synthesis in France in The Evolutionary Synthesis, ed. E. Mayr and W. Provine (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980).
2. See, for example, the last paragraph of the chapter on ?The Factorial Hypothesis? of T. H. Morgan, A. H. Sturtevant, H. J. Muller, and C. B. Bridges, The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity (New York: Henry Holt, 1915 and 1922), in support of the claim that ?[a]lthough Mendel's law does not explain the phenomena of development, and does not pretend to explain them, it stands as a scientific explanation of heredity, because it fulfills all the requirements of any causal explanation? (quoted from the revised ed., p. 281).
3. Until 1917 called Bulletin scientifique de la France et de la Belgique.
4. The most important of these are Ph. L'Héritier, A. Tetry, and R. Wurmser. We also interviewed a number of figures from the next generation, including J. Beisson, G. Cohen, J. M. Goux, C. Petit, P. Slonimski, M. Weiss, Élie Wollman, and a few Americans who spent a year or more in French laboratories in the 1940s or 1950s.
5. H.de Vries, ?Sur la loi de disjonction de hybrides?, Comp. Rend. Acad. Sci., 130 (1900), 845?847. See also idem: ?Sur les unités des caractères spécifiques,? Rev. Gén. Bot., 12 (1900), 83?90; ?Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde,? Ber. deut. botan. Gesell., 18 (1900), 83?90; and ?La loi Mendel et les caractères constants des hybrides,? Comp. Rend. Acad. Sci., 136 (1903), 321?323.