PANGENESIS 109 



le botanists he respected, and on March 14, ' in a state of 

 deep dejection,' bids Darwin pity him. ' However, in for a 

 penny, in for a pound, and if I am in good health and keep 

 a so 'at the time, I will do my very best.' 



The matter that most interested him at this time outside 

 his own work, was Darwin's ' Variation of Animals and Plants 

 under Domestication ' (published January 30, 1868) with the 

 speculation ' which will be called a mad dream,' said its author, 

 of Pangenesis. Several letters bear on this. 



To Charles Darwin 



March 20, 1867. 



I am dying to understand Pangenesis, that haunts me at 

 night. Huxley told me that he had referred you to something 

 of the kind in Bonnet. I cannot conceive a Pangenesis 

 without a correlative Panexodus (the Great God Pan is not 

 dead yet, that's clear). What I mean is this, that if every 

 previous attribute (infinitely subdivided) of all its ancestors 

 exists in an organism, any of these may come out (turn up) 

 in its progeny — but I suspect I am talking nonsense to you. 

 I was so long blind to the force of the derivative hypothesis, 

 that I always feel too inclined to take your views au cowp de 

 (I forget what ; I am coaching up French, hard, for Paris 

 Exposition). 



Darwin answered that Pangenesis by no means implied 

 that every previous attribute of all the ancestors exists in an 

 organism, ' but I fear my dear Pang, will appear bosh to all 

 you Sceptics.' 



Until the middle of November, Darwin was very busy with 

 proofs of the book, and Hooker, knowing this, abstained from 

 writing ; but after the book appeared, he wrote at some 

 length. 



To Charles Darwin 

 [This replies to Darwin's letter of the 23rd, CD. iii. 77.] 



February 26, 1868. 



I am extremely obliged for your candid record of opinions 

 on Pangenesis. I was talking it over with Huxley, who made 



