Particulate Inheritance 145 
pendently, may be inherited independently from either 
parent, without in any way disturbing the equilibrium of 
the organism, or showing any correlation with other 
variations. These facts, it is argued (by the partisans of 
preformation), compel us to believe that hereditary char- 
acters are represented in the idioplasm by distinct and 
definite germs (pangens, idioblasts, biophores, etc.), 
which may vary, appear or disappear, become active or 
latent, without affecting the general architecture of the 
substance of which they form a part. Under any other 
theory we must suppose variations to be caused by 
changes in the molecular composition of the idioplasm as 
a whole, and no writer has shown even in the most ap- 
proximate manner how particulate inheritance can thus 
be conceived.” 119 
It is well known that this is really the principal argu- 
ment, one might say the only one, which Galton brings 
up in defense of his germs, substituted by him for the 
gemmules of Darwin: “The independent origin of the 
several parts of the body can be argued from the separate 
inheritance of their peculiarities. If a child has its 
father’s eyes and its mother’s mouth these two features 
must have had a separate origin. Now, it is observed that 
peculiarities even of a microscopic kind are transmissible 
by inheritance, therefore it may be concluded that the 
most minute parts of the body have separate origins.” **° 
The argument which DeVries brings up in favor of 
his pangens, or material particles representative of the 
119f B, Wilson: The Mosaic Theory of Development. Biol. 
Lect. at the Mar. Biol. Lab. of Wood’s Holl: Summer Session 1893. 
Boston, U. S. A., Ginn, 1804. P. 3—4. 
12°F rancis Galton: A Theory of Heredity. Journ. of the Anthro- 
pological Institute. January 1876. P. 331. 
