i68 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



When there was brought to me a copy of the account as set forth 

 in the Philosophical Transactions, it was joined with the infor- 

 mation that there existed an appended account of pigs, in which a 

 parallel fact had been observed. To my immediate inquiry 

 " Was the male a wild pig ? " there came the reply : " I did not 

 observe/'' Of course I forthwith obtained the volume, and there 

 found what I expected. Jt was contained in a paper communi- 

 cated by Dr. Wollaston from Daniel Giles, Esq., concerning his 

 " sow and her produce," which said that 



"she was one of a well-known black and white breed of Mr. Western, the Mem- 

 ber for Essex. About ten years since I put her to a boar of the wild breed, and 

 of a deep chestnut color, which I had just received from Hatfield House, and 

 which was soon afterward drowned by accident. The pigs produced (which 

 were her first litter) partook in appearance of both boar and sow, but in some 

 the chestnut color of the boar strongly prevailed. 



"The sow was afterward put to a boar of Mr. Western's breed (the wild boar 

 having been long dead). The produce was a litter of pigs, some of which, we 

 observed with much surprise, to be stained and clearly marked with the chestnut 

 color which had prevailed in the former litter. 1 ' 



Mr. Giles adds that in a second litter of pigs, the father of which 

 was of Mr. Western's breed, he and his bailiff believe there was a 

 recurrence, in some, of the chestnut color, but admits that their 

 " recollection is much less perfect than I wish it to be." He also 

 adds that, in the course of many years' experience, he had never 

 known the least appearance of the chestnut color in Mr. Western's 

 breed. 



What are the probabilities that these two anomalous results 

 should have arisen, under these exceptional conditions, as a matter 

 of chance ? Evidently the probabilities against such a coinci- 

 dence are enormous. The testimony is in both cases so good that, 

 even apart from the coincidence, it would be unreasonable to re- 

 ject it; but the coincidence makes acceptance of it imperative. 

 There is mutual verification, at the same time that there is a joint 

 interpretation yielded of the strange phenomenon, and of its non- 

 occurrence under ordinary circumstances. 



And now, in the presence of these facts, what are we to say ? 

 Simply that they are fatal to Weismann's hypothesis. They show 

 that there is none of the alleged independence of the reproductive 

 cells ; but that the two sets of cells are in close communion. They 

 prove that while the reproductive cells multiply and arrange them- 

 selves during the evolution of the embryo, some of their germ- 

 plasm passes into the mass of somatic cells constituting the 

 parental body, and becomes a permanent component of it. Fur- 

 ther, they necessitate the inference that this introduced germ- 

 plasm, everywhere diffused, is some of it included in the repro- 

 ductive cells subsequently formed. And if we thus get a demon- 





