410 



Nachdruck verboten. 



free cuboides secnndarium on both Feet, with some further 

 Remarks on Pfitzner's Theory. 



By Thomas Dwight. 

 With 3 figures. 



Until now, the cuboides secundarium, first recognized as an element 

 in the foot by Pfitzner, has twice been seen free: once by Schwalbe (1), 

 and once by me (2). The two cases were very similar. Last winter 

 I had the extraordinary good fortune to meet with a pair of feet in 

 which it is free on both sides. While a superficial glance at the sole 

 of the foot gives the idea that this case resembles the former ones 

 very closely, a little study shows one very important difference. The 

 descriptions of Schwalbe's case and of my first one appeared in 

 •Germany last summer about a month apart, so that neither of us in 

 preparing his paper was aware of what the other was writing. We 

 both discussed my previous criticisms (3) of Pfitzner's theory, 1 up- 

 holding my views, and Schwalbe attacking them. As the present 

 observations are of great importance in this discussion (which of course 

 is a very friendly one) I should like to make some remarks on it 

 before describing these feet. 



The main point of my criticisms of Pfitzner's theory was, as 

 1 expressed it rather crudely, that the same element is not uncom- 

 monly seen in two places at once. It is needless to say that I did 

 not expect this to be taken quite au pied de la lettre. When 

 •I say, for instance, that the styloid is often found in two places in 

 the same hand, I do not mean that there are two styloids, but that 

 it is represented more or less perfectly in two elements. Sometimes 

 it may be very nearly as well marked on one bone as on the other. 

 Does not this imply that a very fair representation of a styloid may 

 come from an element which is not the one usually known as the 

 styloid ? 



Bateson (4) has correctly declared that „individuality should not 

 be attributed to a member of a series which has normally a definite 

 number of members". Thus in the rare cases of human spines with 

 only eleven thoracic vertebrae without compensation it is idle to 

 •discuss which particular vertebra is wanting. We can only say that 



