Our modern ideas of biological mutation date back to 1901, with the creation of a "mutation theory" that held that new species could arise from parent species in the space of one generation, in a sudden evolutionary jump. The first organism thought to provide evidence for this view, an evening primrose, was later discovered to have chromosomes demonstrating unusual behavior--they would link up in rings rather than pair two by two. The validity of the mutation theory came into question as this behavior was labeled a "degenerate" form of reproduction, "subsexual" or even "queer." Intriguingly enough, however, the same sorts of terms might well have been applied to the men who studied this plant, and who defended its reproductive peculiarities as novel and productive modes with great evolutionary potential. How can knowing the intriguing details of the private lives of these scientists aid a historical investigation of cytogenetics in the early twentieth century? Is the ability to recognize the reproductive value of novel mutants created by queer chromosomal dynamics related to the private lives of those doing the studying and explaining? In other words, is there a connection between the mutant gaze--and the mutant gays? In this talk I will explore the possibility of using sexuality as an analytical lens in the history of science, and will suggest that not only did this plant disrupt assumptions of sexual behavior--it might even be seen as challenging our categories of "sex" and "species" altogether.
