1876 PANGENESIS 21 



stitute of intelligible meaning. It is a jumble of the 

 same confused ideas upon heredity about which 1 

 cbmplained when you were at this house. How in 

 the world can ' force ' act without any material on 

 which to act ? Yet, unless we assume that it can, 

 the whole discussion is either meaningless, or else 

 assmnes the truth of some such theory as ' Pangene- 

 sis.' In other words, as it must be 'unthinkable' 

 that force should act independently of matter, the 

 doctrine of its persistence can only be made to bear 

 upon the question of heredity, by supposing that 

 there is a material connection between corporeal and 

 germinal cells — i.e. by granting the existence of 

 force-carriers, call them gemmules, or physiological 

 imits, or what we please. 



Lawson Tait says (p. 60) — ' The process of growth 

 of the ovum after impregnation can be followed only 

 after the assumption either expressed or unconsciously 

 accepted of such a hypothesis as is contained in Mr. 

 Darwin's " Pangenesis ; " ' and it is interesting, as 

 showing the tmth of the remark, to compare, for ex- 

 ample, p. 29 of the other pamphlet — for, of course, 

 ' Pangenesis ' assumes the truth of the persistence of 

 force as the prime condition of its possibility. If 

 ever I have occasion to prepare a paper about 

 heredity, I think it would be worth while to point 

 out the absurdity of thinking that we explain any- 

 thing by vague allusions to the most ultimate 

 generahsation of science. We might Just as well say 

 that Canadian institutions resemble British ones 

 because force is persistent. This doubtless is the 

 ultimate reason, but our explanation would be scien- 



