THE SUPPOSED TRANSMISSION OF MUTILATIONS. 443 



transmission of mutilations, called my attention to a linear scar on 

 his left ear, which extended from the upper margin of the helix 

 for some distance upon the posterior part of the anthelix, giving 1 it 

 the appearance of a small, rather sharp ridge. The scar had been 

 caused by a cut from a duelling sword, which the gentleman 

 had received during his residence at the University. Strangely 

 enough, the left ear of his daughter, who is five years old, 

 exhibits a similar peculiarity. The posterior part of the ant- 

 helix forms a rather sharp and narrow ridge like that of the father, 

 although the scar itself is wanting. 



I must admit that I was at first rather puzzled by this fact, but 

 the mystery was soon solved in a very simple manner. I asked 

 the father to show me his right ear, and I then saw that this ear 

 possessed a similar ridge on the posterior part of the anthelix. 

 Only the scar was absent, which in the left ear brought the crest 

 of the ridge into still greater prominence. The ridge was there- 

 fore only an individual peculiarity in the formation of the ear 

 of the father, a peculiarity which had been transmitted to one 

 ear of the child. No transmission of the mutilation had taken 

 place. 



In the same manner, many of the so-called proofs of the trans- 

 mission of mutilations would be shown, by a careful examination, to 

 be deceptive. We must not expect to succeed in all of them, for in 

 most cases the investigation cannot be completed, chiefly because 

 the condition of the part in question in the ancestors is not known 

 or is only known in an insufficient manner. This is the reason why 

 fresh examples of such so-called proofs continue to appear from time 

 to time, proofs which do not admit of a searching criticism because 

 something, and in most cases very much, is invariably wanting. 

 But it will be admitted that even a very large number of incom- 

 plete proofs do not make a single complete one. On the other 

 hand, it may be asserted that a single instance of coincidence 

 between a mutilation in the parent and a malformation in the 

 offspring, even if well established, would not constitute a proof of 

 the transmission of mutilations. Not every post hoc is also a 

 propter hoc. Nothing illustrates this better than a comparison 

 between the ' proofs ' which are even now brought forward in 

 favour of the transmission of mutilations and the ' proofs ' which sup- 

 ported the belief in the efficacy of so-called ' maternal impressions ' 



