ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1126/science.66.1703.170
复制
发表时间：
1927-08
期刊：
影响因子：
56.9
通讯作者：
C. W. Stiles
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. W. Stiles
承认到目前为止，我们对我们材料中遇到的多种双性恋和案例的描述只是简短且不完整的。我们承认这种不完整，并对此表示遗憾，并正在稳步补充。但我认为，戈德施密特所钟爱的形态学在男性输卵管中得到了充分的体现（Anat. Rec., 1925, 31, p. 349）；通过女性持久的、甚至有功能的右侧卵巢（Amer. Nat., 1916, 50）；以及列出的雌雄同体 (Whitman, 2, 1919)，或在对其他一些异常（可能不是双性）性腺状况的相当完整的描述中提到的（Brit. Jour. Exp. Biol., 1925, 2）。如果这些尚未被描述的雌雄同体的案例应该导致我们的批评家通过进一步断言里德尔无法正确识别雌雄同体来处理它们，那么他完全欢迎这种立场。戈德施密特指出，我们“通过生殖过度劳累和杂交实验性产生性逆转的主张……是基于这样的假设：一窝卵中的第一个卵是雄性，第二个卵是雌性。”这根本不是事实。“我们对‘性别控制’的研究设法弄清楚卵子是否以正常顺序、相反顺序或完全无序出现”（Amer. Nat., 1925, 59）。此外，根据戈德施密特的说法，我们“从未证明过实验性的性逆转，甚至使其成为可能”。抛开证明的大问题，我们可能会注意到，在我们极少数“家族”杂交之一中获得的单个结果的概率计算表明，除了性逆转之外，该结果“预计在 9,384 次试验中只会出现一次”（Anat. Rec., 1925, 31）。显然，要么戈德塞米特必须阅读更多内容，要么在我的数据项中我必须消除 9,384 中的部分机会。说“里德尔的性别由不同代谢率决定的理论……在雄性异配的正常情况下失败了；在吉普赛蛾等雌性异配的情况下也失败了”，这只是毫无意义的用词。该理论建立在显示“雌性异配性”的形式（鸽子）的基础上，并且早期应用于（我们认为成功的）形式（青蛙），后来证明显示“雄性异配性”；此外，正如之前指出的，这种代谢理论的部分内容后来被借用并未经承认地纳入戈德施密特自己的吉普赛蛾性别决定理论中。无论是好还是坏——除了与鸽子的研究构成其基础的一部分之外——还存在着一种强有力的性别定量理论，该理论基于真实或想象的性反转和除合子组成（戈尔德施密特的研究所基于的）之外的间性，以及对所有阶段（卵子到成体）代谢性别差异的测量。我们和其他人都承认，无论好坏，我们迄今为止只对我们的材料中遇到的多种双性恋和案例进行了简短和不完整的描述。我们承认这种不完整，并对此表示遗憾，并正在稳步补充。但我认为，戈德施密特所钟爱的形态学在男性输卵管中得到了充分的体现（Anat. Rec., 1925, 31, p. 349）；通过女性持久的、甚至有功能的右侧卵巢（Amer. Nat., 1916, 50）；以及列出的雌雄同体 (Whitman, 2, 1919)，或在对其他一些异常（可能不是双性）性腺状况的相当完整的描述中提到的（Brit. Jour. Exp. Biol., 1925, 2）。如果这些尚未被描述的雌雄同体的案例应该导致我们的批评家通过进一步断言里德尔无法正确识别雌雄同体来处理它们，那么他完全欢迎这种立场。戈德施密特指出，我们“声称通过生殖过度劳累实验性地产生了性逆转……”
admit that we have thus far given only short and incomplete accounts of the many kinds and cases of intersexuality encountered in our material. We ac-knowledge and regret, and are steadily supplementing, this incompleteness. But morphology, beloved of Goldschmidt, is I presume ade4uately represented by oviducts in males (Anat. Rec., 1925, 31, p. 349); by persistent, even functional, right ovaries in females (Amer. Nat., 1916, 50); and by the hermaphrodites listed (Whitman, 2, 1919), or referred to in connection with rather full descriptions of some other ab-normal (possibly not intersexual) gonad conditions (Brit. Jour. Exp. Biol., 1925, 2). If these, as yet little described, cases of hermaphroditism should lead our critic to dispose of them by the further assertion that Riddle can not properly recognize an hermaphrodite he is entirely welcome to that position. Goldschmidt states that our" claim to the experimental production of sex-reversal by reproductive overwork and by crossing... is based on the as-sumption that the first egg of a clutch is male, the second female." This is simply not true." Our studies on'sex control'manage to get on whether the eggs come in normal order, reversed order or utter disorder"(Amer. Nat., 1925, 59). Also, according to Goldschmidt we have" never proved experimental sex-reversal or made it even probable." Waiving the large question of proofs, we may note that calculation of probabilities in a single result obtained in one of our very few" family" crosses indicates that-apart from sex-reversal-this result" could be ex-pected to occur only once in 9,384 trials"(Anat. Rec., 1925, 31). So apparently, either Goldsehmidt must read more, or in my items of data I must eliminate part of one chance in 9,384. To say that" Riddle's theory of sex determination by different metabolic rates... fails in the normal case of male heterogamety; it fails in such cases of female heterogamety as the gipsy moth, etc.," is merely to use words without meaning. The theory was founded upon forms showing" female heterogam-ety"(pigeons), and early applied, successfully we think, to forms (frogs) which later proved to show" male heterogamety"; moreover, as earlier pointed out, parts of this metabolic theory were later borrowed and lugged unacknowledged into Goldschmidt's own theory of sex-determination in the gipsy moth. Well or ill founded-and much in addition to work with pigeons forms part of its foundation-there exists a vigorous quantitative theory of sex, based on real or fanciful sex-reversal and intersexuality apart from zygotic composition (on which Gold-schmidt's studies are based), and on measurements of metabolic sex distinction in all stages-ovum to adult. We and others have taken a good or a bad admit that we have thus far given only short and incomplete accounts of the many kinds and cases of intersexuality encountered in our material. We ac-knowledge and regret, and are steadily supplementing, this incompleteness. But morphology, beloved of Goldschmidt, is I presume ade4uately represented by oviducts in males (Anat. Rec., 1925, 31, p. 349); by persistent, even functional, right ovaries in females (Amer. Nat., 1916, 50); and by the hermaphrodites listed (Whitman, 2, 1919), or referred to in connection with rather full descriptions of some other ab-normal (possibly not intersexual) gonad conditions (Brit. Jour. Exp. Biol., 1925, 2). If these, as yet little described, cases of hermaphroditism should lead our critic to dispose of them by the further assertion that Riddle can not properly recognize an hermaphrodite he is entirely welcome to that position. Goldschmidt states that our" claim to the experimental production of sex-reversal by reproductive overwork …