220 



Case I. Bifid, nose (figs. 1 and 2). This case came under the 

 care of my friend and colleague Professor Baeling to whom I am 



fig- 1. 



fig. 2. 



/ 



l'l 



C.He^»^ ^«^^' 



indebted for an opportu- 

 nity of examining it. The 

 appearances presented by 

 the girl, aged 5, are well 

 shown in fig. 1. Looked 

 at from the front the 

 nose appeared to be im- 

 perfectly divided into two 

 portions by a longitudinal 

 furrow passing down the 

 centre. When the head 

 was raised so that the apertures of the nostrils became visible, the 

 cause of the appearance was at once made evident. 



There were four nostrils, two (fig. 2a) placed on either side of 

 the septum, and two (&, 6) placed laterally. The former were much 

 smaller than the latter, and were blind non-functional pits about 

 1,0 cm in depth. The larger pair were the two functional nostrils and 

 presented nothing remarkable. The only other evidence of duplicity 

 about the face was the presence of two frsenula for the upper lip. The 

 case is evidently one of incomplete division of the nose into two 

 noses, each consisting of one perfect and functional and one small 

 and non-functional nostril. Under these circumstances it should be 

 placed in the division Diprosopus and is, I believe, the slightest 

 degree of that form of duplicity which has been placed on record. 

 I have not been able to find in any of the systematic works on Tera- 

 tology or in the literature of that subject an account of any similar 

 or identical case. 



Case II. An unusual form of cleft palate (fig. 3). The 

 still-born foetus next to be described was sent to me by my former pupil 

 Dr. Blueton. It was of the female sex and about the 8*^ month of intra- 

 uterine development. There were various evidence of malformation be- 

 sides those with which I am more particularly concerned. There 



