“So the cross _Couturier_ (orange-yellow) ♀ × the green-seeded _Express_ ♂ gave a number of seeds intermediate in colour. (It is not clear from Tschermak’s paper whether _all_ the seeds were of this colour, but certainly some of them were.) The green _Plein le Panier_ [_Fillbasket_] ♀ × _Couturier_ ♂ in three crosses always gave either seeds of colour intermediate between green and yellow, or some yellow and some green seeds in the same pod. The cross reciprocal to this was not made; but _Express_ ♀ × _Couturier_ ♂ gave 22 seeds of which four were yellowish green[149]. [149] See p. 148. “These facts show _first_ that Mendel’s law of dominance conspicuously fails for crosses between certain races, while it appears to hold for others; and _secondly_ that the intensity of a character in one generation of a race is no trustworthy measure of its dominance in hybrids. The obvious suggestion is that the behaviour of an individual when crossed depends largely upon the characters of its ancestors[150]. When it is remembered that peas are normally self-fertilised, and that more than one named variety may be selected out of the seeds of a single hybrid pod, it is seen to be probable that Mendel worked with a very definite combination of ancestral characters, and had no proper basis for generalisation about yellow and green peas of any ancestry” [which he never made]. [150] Where was that “logician,” the “consulting-partner,” when this piece of reasoning passed the firm? Let us pause a moment before proceeding to the climax. Let the reader note we have been told of _two_ groups of cases in which dominance of yellow failed or was irregular. (Why are not Gärtner’s and Seton’s “exceptions” referred to here?) In one of these groups _Couturier_ was always one parent, either father or mother, and were it not for Tschermak’s own obvious hesitation in regard to his own exceptions (see p. 148), I would gladly believe that _Couturier_--a form I do not know--may be an exceptional variety. _How_ Professor Weldon proposes to explain its peculiarities by reference to ancestry he omits to tell us. The _Buchsbaum_ case is already disposed of, for on Tschermak’s showing, it is an unstable form.