ON METOPISM 



35 



By this table it is clearly shown that the assertion that hydro- 

 cephaly regularly is accompanied by metopism, is a false one. 

 Only in the third case the suture was still open. But it is a ques- 

 tion whether in this case the presence of the suture was due to 

 supposed mechanical influence of .the hydrocephaly. For as 

 mentioned in the table, in this case the sagittal suture was already 

 entirely closed. And this fact justifies the supposition that in 

 this case the skull was a metopical one by inheritance, in which 

 therefore the suture also should have persisted, if the develop- 

 ment of the brain had been quite normal. But, I admit, this 

 to be a mere supposition, although I believe that this case may 

 scarcely be accepted as a proof that metopism is caused by hydro- 

 cephaly. It seems better to disregard this case in a discussion 

 of this matter. Furthermore the other data of the table afford 

 a strong proof against the existence of such a casual relation. 

 The first two crania are of an extraordinary size, with a circum- 

 ference met with rarely, even in hydrocephalic skulls. Surely 

 in both individuals the intracranial pressure must have been an 

 excessive one. And notwithstanding this circumstance the 

 frontal sutures vanished without leaving a single trace. And 

 the same occurred in the other cases mentioned in the table. 



I believe the data of this table to be sufficient to justify my 

 statement, that hydrocephaly by no means produces, as a rule, 

 metopism. Hence it seems to me an error to pretend that an 

 increased intracranial pressure — caused by a marked develop- 

 ment of the brain — is the cause of metopism. For, if the consider- 

 able increase of this pressure, as surely occurred in the skulls 



