Blogs

  • News
  • |
  • Art
  • |
  • History
  • |
  • Food and Travel
  • |
  • Science
Dinosaur Tracking

Where paleontology meets pop culture

Hominid Hunting

Meet the members of the tangled human family tree

Innovations

How human ingenuity is changing the way we live

Surprising Science

Ideas, news and discoveries from the world of science


September 3, 2009

Toad “Fraud” May Have Been Ahead of His Time

A male midwife toad carries fertilized eggs on his legs.  (© blickwinkel / Alamy)

A male midwife toad carries fertilized eggs on his legs. (© blickwinkel / Alamy)

Before Charles Darwin, there was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, the French naturalist who proposed that an organism could pass to its offspring characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime. The classic example is the idea that giraffes got their long necks by gradually stretching them over successive generations in response to the need to reach food high in the trees. Darwin’s theory—which held, in contrast, that giraffes with the longest necks were more likely to survive and reproduce—eventually won out, though Lamarckism persisted well into the 20th century (particularly in the Soviet Union, where it was revived as Lysenkoism).

One proponent of Lamarckism in the 1920s was Austrian biologist Paul Kammerer, who undertook a series of experiments on amphibians, including the midwife toad. These toads are special because they copulate on land and then the male keeps the eggs out of the water by carrying them around, on land, stuck to his own legs.

By placing the toads in an arid, hot environment, Kammerer induced the toads to mate in the water. Under these conditions, the toads simply deposited the eggs into the water—the male did not carry them—and only a few hatched into tadpoles. But later generations who grew up under normal conditions preferred to copulate in the water, and some males developed a trait called “nuptial pads” on their forelimbs (black spots that are used for gripping females and are common on water-dwelling toads). Kammerer believed that this was evidence that Larmarckian evolution was real.

In 1926, however, a herpetologist determined that the nuptial pads on the only specimen remaining from Kammerer’s experiment were simply black spots created by injections of India ink. And six weeks after the herpetologist’s paper appeared in Nature, Kammerer killed himself.

Kammerer denied injecting the frog, but his experiments were never repeated and he is often held up as an example of Lamarckian fraud. Nothing was ever proven, though, and nuptial pads have since been found in a wild midwife frog, proving they are a possible trait. Now, in a new paper, University of Chile biologist Alexander Vargas argues that Kammerer’s experiments produced intriguing evidence of epigenetics, in which a gene’s expression can change but not its underlying sequence, years before scientists discovered this non-Mendelian form of inheritance.

In Kammerer’s time, traits were thought to be inherited in a strict Mendelian fashion, in which genes obey statistical laws. We now know that genetics are far messier; the DNA sequence of a gene is only one part of the picture. For instance, with DNA methylation, a methyl group attaches to DNA resulting in less expression of the gene. Environmental factors can influence DNA methylation, and this can look something like Lamarckian evolution.

Vargas argues that moving the toad eggs from land to water changed their environment, and that change could have caused alterations in gene methylation. And epigenetic mechanisms are now known to influence some of the features that became altered in Kammerer’s toads, such as adult body size and egg size. “Rather than committing fraud,” Vargas writes, “it seems that Kammerer had the misfortune of stumbling upon non-Mendelian inheritance at a time in which Mendelian genetics itself was just becoming well accepted.”



***

Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.

8 Comments »

  1. Charles F. says:

    When is this going to end? First, male breastfeeding .. now this!

  2. Kirby Zeman says:

    The experiments performed by Kammerer were never repeated (I assume not done, rather than not replicated), yet the issue is still being discussed, with much speculation about a lot of possibilities. I would suggest the talk stop and the experiments begin.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Where does this paper appear? How can I get more info?

  4. Sarah Zielinski says:

    The paper appears in the Journal of Experimental Zoology, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122581597/abstract

  5. Anonymous says:

    The writer Arthur Koestler wrote an excellent but nearly-forgotten book on this subject years ago — “The Case of the Midwife Toad” — which gathers evidence that it was possibly one of Kammerer’s admiring students who injected his specimin, misguided that it would help reinforce his already abundant evidence on this subject. He had plenty of other evidence in his own book “Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics. Today there is indeed all kinds of laboratory evidence that the genes and DNA are not perpetuated in splendid isolation within their protective wrappers of the cell nucleus, but that they jump around, copy from messenger RNA, and otherwise react to environmental changes with patterned development. It gets to the point where the older strictly Darwinian natural selection, with genetic changes only by random mutations triggered by unpredictable events like cosmic rays and such, has been largely abandoned except in textbook definitions, with students typically “rubbing out” any violations of Mendel’s Laws in their classroom fruit-fly experiments. In short, it has become a catechism.
    Kammerer’s book, and that of Koestler, should be required reading for biology students, along with all the other heretics: Wilhelm Reich, Louis Kervran, Robert O. Becker, Fritz Popp, Rupert Sheldrake, Frank Brown, Harold Burr, Bjorn Nordenstrom,and other radical naturalists. Oh, but of course I forgot, those books have been shoved into the “quackery” section of the libraries, from whence so many other notables in the history of science have only more recently been rehabilitated.

  6. [...] Bjorn Nordenstrom,and other radical naturalists. Hello to them, goodbye to Watson and Crick. J.D. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2009/09/03/toad-fraud-may-have-been-ahead-of-his-time/ September 3, 2009 Toad “Fraud” May Have Been Ahead of His Time Before Charles Darwin, [...]

  7. Dave Johnson says:

    It seems to me that Kammerer’s experiment caused a de-evolution in the midwife toad and not an evolution.

  8. Anon says:

    It seems to me that Kammerer’s experiment caused a de-evolution in the midwife toad and not an evolution.
    ———————————————
    A new study showed that we can not “de-evolve”, that once these changes occur to the cells, they’re almost impossible to reverse. New changes may occur if the conditions were changed, but you can not actually go backward.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Advertisement



Follow Us



Travel with Smithsonian






Advertisement