260 First and Srcoud Toes in Man 



The examination of a number of skeletons showed tliat, compared 

 with the I'esults of a study of the living foot, too large a proportion had 

 the )S type of fnot.. In <jrder to disco\'er to what this discrepancy is due, 

 it would be necessary to make an examination of a large number of fi-esh 

 feet, the fresh skeletons of these feet and the same skeletons when care- 

 fully dried. As I was only able to carry out this work in one instance, 

 this question must be left to future investigators. 



In consequence of the existence of a numbei' of types of feet, it has 

 become necessary to discover to what factor the difference in the 

 apparent length of the toes is due. It was impoi-tant from the Mendelian 

 point of view to decide whethn tliis difference was due to variations in 

 length of one or more of the skeletal elements or to the terminal soft 

 tissue. In other words, is it due to some tmit character or is this 

 difference, like height, due to a group of characters too complex to 

 be analysed, or, though due to a complex of factors, may it still be 

 inherited as a "unit"^ 



Foi' tile purpose of this I'cscarch radiographs were taken of two 

 complete families, each consisting of two generations. In one family 

 there were the two parents and foui- s(jns ; in the other (Fig. 2, and 

 Plates XIX — XXI), the two parents and three children, two boys and 

 a gii'l. In both these families the feet of tht' two parents wei-e different, 

 whilst the children were of various types. The only difficulty whicJi 

 attended the taking of the photos was in keeping the second toe fiat, 

 but this was o\'ercome in the case of the young children by means of a 

 board placed on the toes. The radiographs were taken by placing the 

 naked foot on a plate and arranging the centre of focus to fall about one- 

 third fi'om the distal end of the third metatarsal. The arch of the toot 

 makes the radiogi-aphs slightly incorrect as the distal ends of the meta- 

 tarsals are nearer to the plate than the proximal ends. As the arch 

 increases with the length of the bones, that is, from childhood to maturity, 

 there would be the same pn)portion of error for each foot. Hence the 

 error may be considered negligible when making comparis(ins between 

 a series of radiographs, all taken under the same conditions. The only 

 condition which might have detracted fi-oni the i-esults would ha\e been 

 a bad case of flat-footedness, but of this, no instance was found. 



A comparison of Fig. 2, with Plates XIX, XX and XXI, shows the 

 correctness of the toe-tracings in these cases. But, it is apparent that the 

 outline of the foot is not exactly the .same as the outline of the .skeleton. 

 If the skeleton of the feet as shown by the radiogi'aphs had alone been 

 examined, the feet would, with one exception (not illustrated), have 



