290 
acted upon. (2) How it was reproduced in the offspring: he 
thought that the transference of the digit could be explained 
as Darwin had done, by the correlation of homologous parts ; 
he thought that these changes were a strong confirmation of 
the doctrine of homology. He preferred then to regard this 
result as coming from the action of secondary affinities (he 
objected to the term polarity) causing re-duplication, and from 
the homologies of the members. 
Prof. PAGET asked how on Darwin’s hypothesis it happened 
that parental defects were often not transmitted. 
Dr Campion asked whether there was a tendency to re- 
duplicate on the outside, especially in the thumb of the hand 
and the little toe. 
Mr GoopMAN, in reply, said that he had, in a portion of his 
paper which he had omitted for curtailment, called attention 
to the action of primary affinities which determined the asso- 
ciation of the gemmules in the generative products, and the 
secondary affinities by which they were built up in the derived 
organism ; he shewed that according to Mr Darwin when re- 
sults were produced by defect of gemmules this could be made 
up in the next generation by fission of the gemmules. He 
shewed from instances that the increase was not always on the 
inside. He gave also some explanation of the muscular 
system of the abnormality. 
Prof. PAGET objected that defects were often made up 
while excesses were very rarely, so that the chances seemed 
against the explanation offered by Mr Goodman. 
Mr GooDMAN pointed out that it was not only the gem- 
mules from the last ancestors that were transmitted, but from 
many previous ancestors. 
Some further conversation took place on the subject of 
Pangenesis. 
