each cell does _actually_ throw off an atom or gemmule of its contents;--but whether or not, this hypothesis serves as a useful connecting link for various grand classes of physiological facts, which at present stand absolutely isolated.” _To_ V. CARUS, _March 21st_ [1868]. “... Sir C. Lyell says to every one, ‘You may not believe in “Pangenesis,” but if you once understand it, you will never get it out of your mind.’ And with this criticism I am perfectly content. All cases of inheritance and reversion and development now appear to me under a new light.” _To_ FRITZ MÜLLER, _June, 1868_. “I have yet hopes that you will think well of Pangenesis. I feel sure that our minds are somewhat alike, and I find it a great relief to have some definite, though hypothetical view, when I reflect on the wonderful transformations of animals,--the re-growth of parts,--and especially the direct action of pollen on the mother-form, &c. It often appears to me almost certain that the characters of the parents are ‘photographed’ on the child, only by means of material atoms derived from each cell in both parents, and developed in the child.” _To_ ASA GRAY, _May 8th_ [1868]. “Your article in the _Nation_ [March 19th] seems to me very good, and you give an excellent idea of Pangenesis--an infant cherished by few as yet, except his tender parent, but which will live a long life. There is parental presumption for you!” _To_ E. RAY LANKESTER, _March 15th_ [1870]. “I was pleased to see you refer[L] to my much despised child, ‘Pangenesis,’ who I think will some day, under some better nurse, turn out a fine stripling.” _To_ WALLACE, _August 28th, 1872_. “Notwithstanding all his [Dr. Bastian’s] sneers I do not strike my colours as yet about Pangenesis.” In the second edition of “Animals and Plants,” Beale’s criticism of the hypothesis is alluded to with characteristic candour and humour:--“Dr. Lionel Beale (_Nature_, May 11th, 1871, p. 26) sneers at the whole doctrine with much acerbity and some justice.” Galton’s paper before the Royal Society (March 30th, 1871), upon the results of inter-transfusion of blood as destructive of pangenesis, was answered by Darwin in _Nature_ (April 27th, 1871). He did “not allow that pangenesis has as yet received its death-blow, though from presenting so many vulnerable points its life is always in jeopardy.” Galton had argued that the gemmules present in the blood of one individual would be expected to pass into the other individual and to produce hereditary effects on its offspring. This, however, did not occur. Romanes repeated these experiments under more rigid conditions, but with the same negative results; equally negative were the effects of his transplantation of skin from one animal to another, although the skin grew quite successfully in its new position.