Darwinism stated by Darwin himself / Characteristic passages from the writings of Charles Darwin

by Charles Darwin

Page 372.

But I have further to assume that the gemmules in their undeveloped state are capable of largely multiplying themselves by self-division, like independent organisms. Delpino insists that to “admit of multiplication by fissiparity in corpuscles, analogous to seeds or buds ... is repugnant to all analogy.” But this seems a strange objection, as Thuret has seen the zoöspore of an alga divide itself, and each half germinated. Haeckel divided the segmented ovum of a siphonophora into many pieces, and these were developed. Nor does the extreme minuteness of the gemmules, which can hardly differ much in nature from the lowest and simplest organisms, render it improbable that they should grow and multiply. A great authority, Dr. Beale, says that “minute yeast-cells are capable of throwing off buds or gemmules, much less than the 1/100000 of an inch in diameter”; and these he thinks are “capable of subdivision practically ad infinitum.”

A particle of small-pox matter, so minute as to be borne by the wind, must multiply itself many thousandfold in a person thus inoculated; and so with the contagious matter of scarlet fever. It has recently been ascertained that a minute portion of the mucous discharge from an animal affected with rinderpest, if placed in the blood of a healthy ox, increases so fast that in a short space of time “the whole mass of blood, weighing many pounds, is infected, and every small particle of that blood contains enough poison to give, within less than forty-eight hours, the disease to another animal.”

* * * * *

Page 374.

The gemmules derived from each part or organ must be thoroughly dispersed throughout the whole system. We know, for instance, that even a minute fragment of a leaf of a begonia will reproduce the whole plant; and that if a fresh-water worm is chopped into small pieces, each will reproduce the whole animal. Considering also the minuteness of the gemmules and the permeability of all organic tissues, the thorough dispersion of the gemmules is not surprising. That matter may be readily transferred without the aid of vessels from part to part of the body, we have a good instance in a case recorded by Sir J. Paget of a lady, whose hair lost its color at each successive attack of neuralgia and recovered it again in the course of a few days. With plants, however, and probably with compound animals, such as corals, the gemmules do not ordinarily spread from bud to bud, but are confined to the parts developed from each separate bud; and of this fact no explanation can be given.

TWO OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

Page 380.

But we have here to encounter two objections which apply not only to the regrowth of a part, or of a bisected individual, but to fissiparous generation and budding. The first objection is that the part which is reproduced is in the same stage of development as that of the being which has been operated on or bisected; and in the case of buds, that the new beings thus produced are in the same stage as that of the budding parent. Thus a mature salamander, of which the tail has been cut off, does not reproduce a larval tail; and a crab does not reproduce a larval leg. In the case of budding it was shown in the first part of this chapter that the new being thus produced does not retrograde in development—that is, does not pass through those earlier stages which the fertilized germ has to pass through. Nevertheless, the organisms operated on or multiplying themselves by buds must, by our hypothesis, include innumerable gemmules derived from every part or unit of the earlier stages of development; and why do not such gemmules reproduce the amputated part or the whole body at a corresponding early stage of development?

The second objection, which has been insisted on by Delpino, is that the tissues, for instance, of a mature salamander or crab, of which a limb has been removed, are already differentiated and have passed through their whole course of development; and how can such tissues in accordance with our hypothesis attract and combine with the gemmules of the part which is to be reproduced? In answer to these two objections we must bear in mind the evidence which has been advanced, showing that at least in a large number of cases the power of regrowth is a localized faculty, acquired for the sake of repairing special injuries to which each particular creature is liable; and, in the case of buds or fissiparous generation, for the sake of quickly multiplying the organism at a period of life when it can be supported in large numbers. These considerations lead us to believe that in all such cases a stock of nascent cells or of partially developed gemmules are retained for this special purpose either locally or throughout the body, ready to combine with the gemmules derived from the cells which come next in due succession. If this be admitted, we have a sufficient answer to the above two objections. Anyhow, pangenesis seems to throw a considerable amount of light on the wonderful power of regrowth.