THE PEOVISIONAL HYPOTHESIS OF PANGENESIS. 305 



matter may be readily transferred without the aid of ves- 

 sels from part to part of the body, we have a good in- 

 stance in a case recorded by Sir J. Paget of a lady, whose 

 hair lost its color at each successive attack of neuralgia 

 and recovered it again in the course of a few days. With 

 plants, however, and probably with compound animals, 

 such as corals, the gemmules do not ordiuarily spread 

 from bud to bud, but are confined to the parts developed 

 from each separate bud ; and of this fact no explanation 

 can be given, 



TWO OBJECTIONS ANSWEKED, 



„ „„„ But we have here to encounter two objec- 

 Page 380. ' 



tions which apply not only to the regrowth 



of a part, or of a bisected individual, but to fissiparous 

 generation and budding. The first objection is that the 

 part which is reproduced is in the same stage of develop- 

 ment as that of the being which has been operated on or 

 bisected ; and in the case of buds, that the new beings 

 thus produced are in the same stage as that of the bud- 

 ding parent. Thus a mature salamander, of which the 

 tail has been cut off, does not reproduce a larval tail ; 

 and a crab does not reproduce a larval leg. In the case 

 of budding it was shown in the first part of this chapter 

 that the new being thus produced does not retrograde in 

 development — that is, does not pass through those earlier 

 stages which the fertilized germ has to pass through. 

 Nevertheless, the organisms operated on or multiplying 

 themselves by buds must, by our hypothesis, include 

 innumerable gemmules derived from every part or unit 

 of the earlier stages of development ; and why do not 

 such gemmules reproduce the amputated part or the 

 whole body at a corresponding early stage of develop- 

 ment ? 



