182 CHARLES DARWIK. 



To HOOKER, February 23rd [1868]. 

 After expressing a fear that Pangenesis is still- 

 born because of the difficulty with which it is under- 

 stood, he says : 



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

 I feel sure if Pangenesis is now still-born 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 pos- 

 sibly 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." 



To WALLACE, February 21th [1868], 



" You cannot well imagine how much I have been pleased 

 by what you say about ' Pangenesis.' . . . What you say 

 exactly and fully expresses my feeling, viz. that it is a relief to 

 have some feasible explanation of the various facts, which can 

 be given up as soon as any better hypothesis is found. It has 

 certainly been an immense relief to my mind ; for I have been 

 stumbling over the subject for years, dimly seeing that some 

 relation existed between the various classes of facts. . . . You 

 have indeed pleased me, for I had given up the great god Pan 

 as a still-born deity." 



To HOOKER, February 28th [1868]. 



" I see clearly that any satisfaction which Pan may give will 

 depend on the constitution of each man's rnind. ... I 

 heard yesterday from Wallace, who says (excuse horrid vanity), 

 'I can hardly tell you how much I admire the chapter on 

 " Pangenesis." It is a positive comfort to me to have any feasible 

 explanation of a difficulty that has always been haunting me, 



