2007-07-06 16:39:08 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
1. His experiment was relatively simple than that of his predecessors
2. His mathematical approach to solve a biological phenomena
3. He stressed on discontinous variation
4. Afterwards, three other scientists (hugo de vries, carl correns and tchermark) later arrived at the same conclusion
hope it helps. (i'm very bad in spelling scientist's names though!
2007-07-06 21:37:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Dominance and Recessiveness; The Principle of Segregation; The Testcross
2007-07-06 23:43:50 · answer #2 · answered by rickey p 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It also helped that he somewhat fudged his results by only reporting those traits that followed his rules.
He had other data that didn't match Mendelian inheritance - they were linked genes (close on a chromosome, generally, and inherited together). These threw off his ideas about independents segregation.
He actually wasn't successful during his lifetime. His work was taken up much later by a student who heard about his studies.
Key idea: cheating made him successful. Not that he wasn't smart - he was a genius - but he didn't report his data in a scientifically conscientious manner.
2007-07-07 22:04:48 · answer #3 · answered by Sci Fi Insomniac 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The choice of pea plant because it is highly homozygous,easy to cultivate and cross,contamonation of crosses rom foreign pollen was available due to its special floral structure.
2013-11-02 04:19:55 · answer #4 · answered by Salman Goraya 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
His systematic and for the time, his mathematical approach to the problem. His choice of plant, the pea, was evidence of his systematic approach.
2007-07-06 23:54:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hi. Primarily his choice of only seven genetic variables. http://www.answers.com/mendel?cat=health&gwp=13
2007-07-06 23:42:48 · answer #6 · answered by Cirric 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋