TRANSMISSION OF MALFORMATIONS. 183 
and in the end states that he is inclined to regard this 
as an example of the inheritance of acquired defect, for 
the following reasons :—The limits between the lobule 
and the tail of the helix are never so sharply defined as 
in this case. The cleft is situated too posteriorly to 
correspond to the line of fusion of the fifth and sixth 
tubercles, and the tubercle for the antitragus is, in the 
embryo, some distance from the external margin of the 
ear. 
It is unnecessary to discuss the reasons advanced by 
aN 
e 
Fic. 97.—A, pinna of Mother showing the rent in the lobule 
where the earring’was torn away ; B, pinna of Son with 
congenital defect. (After Schmidt.) 
Schmidt in support of this view, for they are nullified by 
some observations made on this case by Professor His, 
in a subsequent number of the Correspondenz-Llatt fiir 
Anthropologie (March, 1889), to the effect that the 
defect in the ear of the son not only differs from that 
in the mother in its general character, but occupies a 
different position in the lobule, as is easily seen in com- 
paring the two pinne. 
