TRANSLA TOR 'S PREFA CE 



When the mother was between six and ten years old, her 

 ear-ring was accidentally torn out, and the lobe of the ear 

 was split from the hole through which the ring passed down 

 to its edge. After the two divided surfaces had healed 

 together, a cleft was left round the external edge of the 

 wound. Weismann gives a woodcut of each ear, taken 

 from a photograph, indicating by reference letters the corre- 

 sponding parts in the two figures, and then proceeds to argue 

 that the cleft in the son's ear has really nothing to do with 

 the lobe at all, but is situated between the true lobe and 

 the termination of the helix. I do not require to appeal to 

 experienced human anatomists to support my contention that 

 Weismann has made an erroneous identification of the parts 

 of the son's ear in order to suit his own argument. His. own 

 figures are sufficient to prove this to any fair-minded man 

 who knows something of anatomy. In the first place, the 

 line of attachment in the figure of the mother's ear is inclined 

 downwards to the left, in the son's to the right, in consequence 

 of which, of course, the apparent difference between the two 

 clefts is increased. Secondly, the lower end of the helix, 

 marked Sp. H in the mother's ear, is not marked at all in 

 the son's, the same letters in the latter pointing to the right 

 half of the lobe of the ear, separated from the left half by a 

 cleft closely corresponding to that in the mother's ear. The 

 only difference between the shape of the lobe in the son's 

 ear and that in the mother's is that in the former the outer 

 half of the lobe is shorter and smaller than the inner, while 

 in the mother's ear they are about equal : a difference which 

 I present to Professor Weismann to make what use of he 

 pleases. 



I mention this merely to show to what straits Professor 



