442 THE SUPPOSED TRANSMISSION OF MUTILATIONS. 



pletely excludes the interpretation of this malformation as the 

 transmission of a mutilation. 



If we compare the ears with each other, that of the mother with 

 that of the son, not only the anatomist but every trained observer 

 will at once be struck by the fact that they are totally different 

 in their outlines as well as in every detail. The upper margin of 

 the ear is very broad in the mother, in the son it is quite pointed : 

 the so-called crura anthelicis are normally developed in the mother. 

 in the son they can hardly be distinguished and open in an an- 

 terior direction, while in the mother they are directed upwards. 

 The concha itself, the incisura inlertragica, in short everything- in 

 the two ears, is as different as it can possibly be in the ears of 

 two individuals. 



But this fact obviously proves that the son does not possess the 

 ear of his mother, but probably that of his father or grandfather. 

 Unfortunately the father and grandfather have been now dead for 

 a long time, so that we cannot obtain certain evidence upon this 

 point. At all events, the son does not possess the ear of his mother, 

 and it would be very rash to suppose that he has inherited the ear 

 from the father, but the malformation of the ear-lobe from the mother 

 a malformation which, as it seems to me, is certainly quite 

 different from that of his mother's ear. I said that this case was of 

 fundamental importance chiefly because it shows very distinctly, 

 on the one hand, how difficult it is to bring together the material 

 which is absolutely necessary for the correct understanding of a 

 single case, and on the other hand, how carefully the abnormalities 

 must be compared and examined if we wish to escape wrong con- 

 clusions. Such precautions have hitherto been rarely taken with 

 the necessary accuracy ; people are in most cases satisfied with the 

 knowledge that an abnormality is present in the child on the 

 same part which had been malformed by mutilation in the parent. 



But if we are to speak of the transmission of a mutilation, it 

 must be shown, before everything else, that the malformation of 

 the child corresponds precisely to the mutilation of the parent. 



For this reason the older observations upon this subject are, in 

 most cases, entirely valueless. 



The readiness with which we may be deceived is shown by 

 the fact that I myself nearly became a victim during the past 

 year (1888). A friend of mine, in order to convince me of the 



