Weismannian

alternative Weissmannian

1. not comparableOf or relating to August Weismann (1834–1914), German evolutionary biologist.

   Lamarckian, Darwinian, Weismannian, and Mendelian concepts and their transferability onto the “biology of the Jews” were hotly debated.

   2016, Veronika Lipphardt, “The Emancipatory Power of Heredity […]”, in Staffan Müller-Wille, Christina Brandt, editors, Heredity Explored: Between Public Domain and Experimental Science, 1850–1930 (Transformations: Studies in the History of Science and Technology), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, →ISBN, part II (Genealogy, Kinship, and Population), page 114

   2 more examples

   It appears to the writer that [Oscar] Riddle attacks very successfully the de Vriesian interpretation of these phenomena. Unfortunately, however, he utterly confuses Mendelian facts with de Vriesian and Weismannian theories—hypotheses, rather, and attempts to throw both facts and hypotheses out of court.

   1910 February, W[illiam] J[asper] Spillman, “The Mendelian View of Melanin Formation”, in The American Naturalist […], volume XLIV, number 518, Lancaster, Pa.; Garrison, N.Y.; New York, N.Y.: The Science Press, →ISSN, →OCLC, page 226

   However, while the particle hypothesis is not disproved, I have no doubt that the Weismannian, and perhaps also the De Vriesian conception of the genes will seem less and less plausible as new facts accumulate.

   1910 April 23, George Harrison Shull, “Germinal Analysis through Hybridization”, in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society […], volume XLIX, number 196, Philadelphia, Pa.: American Philosophical Society, published August–September 1910, →ISSN, →OCLC, page 286

plural Weismannians · alternative Weissmannian

1. An adherent of the views of August Weismann (1834–1914), German evolutionary biologist.

   Secondly, it must be frankly admitted that in many instances in which acquired characters have been said to be inherited or might be expected to be inherited, the Weismannians have shown that nevertheless there is no such inheritance.

   1896–1898, James Ward, “Lecture X: Biological Evolution”, in Naturalism and Agnosticism […], volume I, New York, N.Y.: The Macmillan Company; London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., published 1899, →OCLC, part II (Theory of Evolution), page 301

   2 more examples

   The Embryologists protest that the Weismannians and the Cytologists have gone too far. You claim too much. You are perilously near the old pre-formationists who thought they could detect the whole future organism in miniature within the egg.

   1909 February 12, William Patten, “[Charles] Darwin, the Emancipator of Science and Some Modern Phases of Organic Evolution”, in The New York Times, New York, N.Y.: The New York Times Company, →ISSN, →OCLC

   Even if we assume that the various substances with which we have been dealing are each produced by a single pair of chromosomes rather than by all the organs of the cell we can not look upon the chromosomes as the hereditary units spoken of by the de Vriesians and Weismannians, for we here look upon each chromosome as playing possibly an important part in the development of every feature of the organism.

   1909 December 29, W[illiam] J[asper] Spillman, “Mendelian Phenomena without de Vriesian Theory”, in The American Naturalist […], volume XLIV, number 520, Lancaster, Pa.; Garrison, N.Y.; New York, N.Y.: The Science Press, published April 1910, →ISSN, →OCLC, page 226