98 
Proceedings of Royal Society of Edinburgh . [sess. 
IV. Abandonment of Special Hypothesis — The Doctrine of 
Germinal Continuity. 
As far back as 1849, Owen pointed out in his paper on Par- 
thenogenesis that in the developing germ it was possible to distin- 
guish between cells which became much changed to form the body, 
and cells which remained little changed and formed the reproductive 
organs. This was probably the earliest distinct suggestion of the 
modern theory of germinal continuity. 
In 1866, in his classic Generelle Morphologie , Haeckel em- 
phasised the simple and yet fundamental fact of the material 
continuity of offspring and parent. In a historical note upon the 
distinction between the “ personal ” and “ germinal ” parts of an 
organism, Rauber states that the distinction was proposed by 
Haeckel in 1874, and by himself in 1879. 
J tiger stated the doctrine of germinal continuity very clearly and 
concisely at an early date : — “ Through a great series of generations 
the germinal protoplasm retains its specific properties, dividing in 
every reproduction into an ontogenetic portion, out of which the 
individual is built up, and a phylogenetic portion which is reserved 
to form the reproductive material of the mature offspring. This 
reservation of the phylogenetic material I described as the continuity 
of the germ protoplasm” “ Encapsuled in the ontogenetic 
material, the phylogenetic protoplasm is sheltered from external 
influences, and retains its specific and embryonic characters.” 
Brooks notes that, in papers published in 1876 and 1877, he had 
also suggested the notion of germinal continuity, and the concep- 
tion is clearly expressed in his work already quoted : — “ The ovum 
gives rise to the divergent cells of the organism, but also to cells 
like itself. The ovarian ova of the offspring are these latter cells, 
or their direct unmodified descendants. The ovarian ova of the 
offspring share by direct inheritance all the properties of the fertilised 
ovum.” 
The important theory of Galton now requires notice. Two pre- 
liminary notes are requisite. Galton is extremely doubtful in regard 
to the genuine transmission of acquired characters. It is to account 
for the possible faint inheritance of some of these that he still 
admits, as a subsidiary hypothesis, a limited amount of pangenesis. 
