While aware of the works of various evolutionists in their dotage (Galton, Wallace, Weismann), initially Bateson is likely to have overlooked Hugo de Vriesâ Intracellular Pangenesis. De Vries modified Darwinâs hypothesis of âpangenesis,â according the âelements,â or âpangensâ that corresponded to individual characters, attributes that we now know to be those of genes. Darwin thought a character acquired during an individualâs 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. âAncestralâ ch- acters that disappeared and later reappeared were due to âlatentâ (hidden) elements. These were distinguished from the âpatentâ (overt) elements that determined characters regularly seen in the offspring. Both elements were in the gametes as âprimary elements. â The latent elements constituted a âre- dueâ that remained after separation of âpatent elementsâ from the primary elements. Galton downplayed the role of Darwinâs natural selection.
