78 'VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.' [1868. 



I don't quite see whether I or the writer is in a muddle about 

 man causing variability. If a man drops a bit of iron into 

 sulphuric acid he does not cause the affinities to come into 

 play, yet he may be said to make sulphate of iron. I do not 

 know how to avoid ambiguity. 



After what the Pall Mall Gazette and the Chronicle have 

 said, I do not care a d — . 



I fear Pangenesis is stillborn ; Bates says he has read it 

 twice, and is not sure that he understands it. H. Spencer 

 says the view is quite different from his (and this is a great 

 relief to me, as I feared to be accused of plagiarism, but 

 utterly failed to be sure what he meant, so thought it safest 

 to give my view as almost the same as his), and he says he is 

 not sure he understands it. . . . Am I not a poor devil ? yet I 

 took such pains, I must think that I expressed myself clearly. 

 Old Sir H. Holland says he has read it twice, and thinks it 

 very tough ; but believes that sooner or later " some view 

 akin to it " will be accepted. 



You will think me very self-sufficient, when I declare that I 

 feel sure if Pangenesis is now stillborn it will, thank God, 

 at some future time reappear, begotten by some other father, 

 and christened by some other name. 



Have you ever met with any tangible and clear view of 

 what takes place in generation, whether by seeds or buds, or 

 how a long-lost character can possibly reappear ; or how the 

 male element can possibly affect the mother plant, or the 

 mother animal, so that her future progeny are affected ? Now 

 all these points and many others are connected together, 

 whether truly or falsely is another question, by Pangenesis. 

 You see I die hard, and stick up for my poor child. 



This letter is written for my own satisfaction, and not for 

 yours. So bear it. 



Yours affectionately, 



Ch. Darwin. 



