289 
Mr Goodman, during the reading of the paper, referred to 
many abnormalities besides the one which formed the subject 
of his paper, and many of his deductions were derived from 
these. 
The PRESIDENT made some remarks on the theory of 
Pangenesis, and read an extract from Darwin, wherein he 
stated his hypothesis of Pangenesis, and pointed out some 
of the difficulties attendant upon it, as the difficulty of under- 
standing how such an immense number of gemmules could be 
contained in a minute ovum, and how they could be trans- 
mitted unchanged through successive generations. 
Professor MAxweELL spoke of the difficulty of conceiving of 
chemical molecules in sufficient See being packed in these 
small gemmules. 
Dr M. Foster spoke of the difficulties in the theory of 
Pangenesis, especially that mentioned by Prof. Maxwell; still 
on that point we have limited positive information as to the 
size of those chemical molecules, nor do we know how many 
gemmules were required to be contained in an ovum. It was 
a morphological limit Mr Darwin was really rather seeking— 
such a one he (Dr Foster) did not think to hold good, rather 
was there a physiological one. The “cell” did not always 
exist as in some low forms of Protozoa. We cannot detect 
a structure in Protoplasm, still there must be some approach 
to structure. If you go on dividing it there must be a limit of 
division, beyond which it cannot continue to live; this there- 
fore suggests a physiological limit. He thought that to the 
“primary” affinities of gemmules secondary affinities must be 
added, these must influence also its future fate. With regard 
to this special problem described by Mr Goodman we must 
consider (1) How this abnormality first made its appearance ; 
this he regarded as a case of re-duplication, a tendency to which 
as to fusion was well-known: this he thought did not disa- 
gree with Pangenesis, but that the secondary affinities were 
22 
