PROBLEMS OF HUMAN DENTITION 111 



duction is <i;i\'en of a bilateral parainolar, alternating with the 

 second and third molar, and in figure 7 a case is reproduced of 

 a paramolar situated in the corner Ijetween the first and second 

 molar. In both specimens the supernumerary element stands 

 in its typical place, which it always occupies, alternating with 

 the normal molars. 



It should be mentioned here that a paramolar alternating 

 with the first and second molars, is not an element identical with 

 that alternating with the second and third molars. Both super- 

 numerary teeth are anomalies of the same morphological order, 

 but the relation between them is one of analogy and not of 

 identity. This statement will be confirmed later on. For the 

 sake of simplified description it is desirable to distinguish these 

 two supernumerary teeth in some simple manner. The tooth 

 alternating with the first and second molar I shall distinguish 

 as Paramolar I, and that alternating with the second and third 

 as molar Paramolar II. As already pointed out, a Paramolar 

 I is of rarer occurrence than a Paramolar II. 



We ha\'e emphasized above the fact that the paramolars 

 always stand in an alternating position in regard to the molars. 

 Is this topographical relation, which is entirely typical, a primary 

 ro a secondary one? The supposition is that in consequence 

 of lack of space, mechanical influences push the supernumerary- 

 element into a position, which is the least inconvenient, and yet 

 this is a misconjecture. We must lay stress upon the fact that 

 the typical topographical relation between molars and para- 

 molars is a primary one. It is impossible to prove the accu- 

 racy of this view in a direct manner, such a proof being only 

 obtainable by accidental embryological observation. But in the 

 following pages I hope to be able to justify my assertions in a 

 complete, be it indirect, manner. As we shall demonstrate here- 

 after, this situation of the paramolars is a factor of much value 

 in the discussion of the ontogenetical nature of our molars. 



In literature the opinion is advocated, for instance by Depen- 

 dorf, that a paramolar, considered intrinsically, should be a 

 distomolar, which during its development has been displaced 

 laterally, from some cause or other, and erupted outside of the 



