While aware of the works of various evolutionists in their dotage (Galton, Wallace, Weismann), initially Bateson is likely to have overlooked Hugo de Vries’ Intracellular Pangenesis. De Vries modified Darwin’s hypothesis of “pangenesis,” according the “elements,” or “pangens” that corresponded to individual characters, attributes that we now know to be those of genes. Darwin thought a character acquired during an individual’s life time, could, by virtue of the transfer of the corresponding educated pangens (gemmules), be passed on to its children. However, experiments by Galton and Heape d- proved his belief that the pangens could move from normal tissue cells to - nadal cells. Like Weismann, Galton saw the potentially immortal germ-line (stored in the ovary or testis) as distinct from the soma (the mortal remainder of the body). Since gametes remained the same size from generation to g- eration, then each parent could on average only transmit half its elements to a child, the other half being lost. This meant that there might be competition between elements for representation in future generations. “Ancestral” ch- acters that disappeared and later reappeared were due to “latent” (hidden) elements. These were distinguished from the “patent” (overt) elements that determined characters regularly seen in the offspring. Both elements were in the gametes as “primary elements. ” The latent elements constituted a “re- due” that remained after separation of “patent elements” from the primary elements. Galton downplayed the role of Darwin’s natural selection.
