284 SCIENCE PROGRESS. 



tion many years ago by Mr. Benjamin Grainger, of Derby". 

 It woukl be of high interest to ascertain something more 

 about IVIr. Grainger and to find out whether he ever 

 published on his own account. It is however probable, 

 from the other pregnant ideas contained in Dr. Prichard's 

 work, that the clear expression, apt illustration, and ad- 

 mirable discussion of these principles are entirely original. 



He then proceeds to illustrate the first proposition 

 " that all original or connate peculiarities of body are 

 hereditary"; first instancing the well-known "porcupine 

 family, in which a remarkable peculiarity of the [human] 

 skin was transmitted through three successive generations," 

 and the facts which prove the hereditary nature of com- 

 plexion, as shown in section ii. Supernumerary and 

 abnormally thickened digits are then brought forward and 

 proved by many examples to be markedly hereditary ; as 

 also "a singular thickness of the upper lip, in the Imperial 

 house of Austria," introduced it is believed " many centuries 

 ago ... by an intermarriage with the ancient house of 

 Jagellon ". 



The last examples of such connate characters are especi- 

 ally significant. " The same observation equally applies to 

 those minute varieties of organization, which give rise to 

 peculiarities of habit or temperament, and predispose to a 

 variety of morbid affections, as deafness, scrofulous com- 

 plaints, and the whole catalogue of disorders in the nervous 

 system. Even those singular peculiarities termed idio- 

 syncrasies are often hereditary, as in the instance of a 

 remarkable susceptibility of the action of particular medi- 

 cines, such as mercury," 



With regard to the second proposition "that acquired 

 peculiarities, or characters impressed by adventitious circum- 

 stances, and not arising in the spontaneous development of 

 the bodily structure, are never transmitted ..." he re- 

 marks, as it has often been insisted upon since, that the 

 conclusion "is more difficult to establish than the foregoing 

 . . ., since the proofs must needs be of a negative kind. 

 But," he continues, " there is no want of evidence of this 

 description." And he again insists, as if he could not put it 



