They are collected from all parts of the system to constitute the sexual elements, and their development in the next generation forms a new being; but they are likewise capable of transmission in a dormant state to future generations and may then be developed. Their development depends on their union with other partially developed or nascent cells which precede them in the regular course of growth. Why I use the term union, will be seen when we discuss the direct action of pollen on the tissues of the mother-plant. Gemmules are supposed to be thrown off by every unit, not only during the adult state, but during each stage of development of every organism; but not necessarily during the continued existence of the same unit. Lastly, I assume that the gemmules in their dormant state have a mutual affinity for each other, leading to their aggregation into buds or into the sexual elements. Hence, it is not the reproductive organs or buds which generate new organisms, but the units of which each individual is composed. These assumptions constitute the provisional hypothesis which I have called Pangenesis. Views in many respects similar have been propounded by various authors. (27/42. Mr. G.H. Lewes ('Fortnightly Review' November 1, 1868 page 506) remarks on the number of writers who have advanced nearly similar views. More than two thousand years ago Aristotle combated a view of this kind, which, as I hear from Dr. W. Ogle, was held by Hippocrates and others. Ray, in his 'Wisdom of God' (2nd edition 1692 page 68), says that "every part of the body seems to club and contribute to the seed." The "organic molecules" of Buffon ('Hist. Nat. Gen.' edition of 1749 tome 2 pages 54, 62, 329, 333, 420, 425) appear at first sight to be the same as the gemmules of my hypothesis, but they are essentially different. Bonnet ('Oeuvres d'Hist. Nat.' tome 5 part 1 1781 4to edition page 334) speaks of the limbs having germs adapted for the reparation of all possible losses; but whether these germs are supposed to be the same with those within buds and the sexual organs is not clear. Prof. Owen says ('Anatomy of Vertebrates' volume 3 1868 page 813) that he fails to see any fundamental difference between the views which he propounded in his 'Parthenogenesis' (1849 pages 5- 8), and which he now considers as erroneous, and my hypothesis of pangenesis: but a reviewer ('Journal of Anat. and Phys.' May 1869 page 441) shows how different they really are. I formerly thought that the "physiological units" of Herbert Spencer ('Principles of Biology' volume 1 chapters 4 and 8 1863-64) were the same as my gemmules, but I now know that this is not the case. Lastly, it appears from a review of the present work by Prof. Mantegazza ('Nuova Antologia, Maggio' 1868), that he (in his 'Elementi di Igiene' Ediz. 3 page 540) clearly foresaw the doctrine of pangenesis.)
Before proceeding to show, firstly, how far these assumptions are in themselves probable, and secondly, how far they connect and explain the various groups of facts with which we are concerned, it may be useful to give an illustration, as simple as possible, of the hypothesis. If one of the Protozoa be formed, as it appears under the microscope, of a small mass of homogeneous gelatinous matter, a minute particle or gemmule thrown off from any part and nourished under favourable circumstances would reproduce the whole; but if the upper and lower surfaces were to differ in texture from each other and from the central portion, then all three parts would have to throw off gemmules, which when aggregated by mutual affinity would form either buds or the sexual elements, and would ultimately be developed into a similar organism. Precisely the same view may be extended to one of the higher animals; although in this case many thousand gemmules must be thrown off from the various parts of the body at each stage of development; these gemmules being developed in union with pre-existing nascent cells in due order of succession.
Physiologists maintain, as we have seen, that each unit of the body, though to a large extent dependent on others, is likewise to a certain extent independent or autonomous, and has the power of increasing by self-division.