| Title |
Ernst Mayr’s interactions with J. B. S. Haldane
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40656-016-0098-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Veena Rao, Vidyanand Nanjundiah |
| Abstract |
Ernst Mayr and J. B. S. Haldane, major contributors to the 'modern synthesis' in evolutionary theory, set an example of how scientific disagreements need not come in the way of friendship. After getting acquainted, they kept discussing issues related to evolution until just before Haldane's death in 1964. Their dissimilar backgrounds meant that they adopted different approaches. A major disagreement emerged regarding the right way to look at the role of genes in evolution. Mayr felt that the elementary models of population genetics were oversimplifications and therefore inadequate for representing evolutionary processes, though he was not consistent in his attitude. Haldane, on the other hand, maintained that the mathematical treatment of simple models had an important role to play. The Mayr-Haldane interactions illustrate divergent viewpoints concerning the utility of mathematics in biology. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 40% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 20% |
| Other | 1 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 2 | 40% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 20% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 20% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#16,291,311
of 23,999,200 outputs
Outputs from History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
#358
of 482 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,040
of 302,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,999,200 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 482 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 302,359 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.