VIII.] SUPPOSED TRANSMISSIOX or MUTILATrnxs. 4-3 



more minutely than is generally possible in such cases : and 

 I will discuss it in detail, as it seems to me to be of fundameniai 

 importance in the history of human errors upon tliis subject. 



In a most respectable and thoroughly trustworthy family, the 

 mother possesses a cleft ear-lobe upon one side. She quite 

 distinctly remembers that when playing, between the ages of 

 six and ten years, another child tore out her ear-ring, and that 

 the wound healed so that the cleft remained. Later on a new 

 hole was made in the posterior part of the lobe. She had seven 

 children, and the second of these, who is now a full-grown man, 

 has a cleft ear-lobe on the same side as the mother. It is not 

 known whether the mother possessed an innate malformation 

 of the ear before it was mutilated, but, judging from the present 

 appearance of the ear, this is extremely improbable. Further- 

 more, the existence of an innate cleft in the ear-lobe has never 

 been previously observed. The parents of the mother did not 

 possess any malformation of the ear. The conclusion seemed 

 to be therefore inevitable that the transmission of an artificial 

 cleft in the ear-lobe had really taken place. 



But we must not be too hasty in forming an opinion. When 

 we compare the figures I. and II., representing the two ears, 

 we are first of all struck by the fact that the mallbrmation of 

 the ear of the son has an entirely different appearance from 

 that of the mother. The ear-lobe of the latter is quite normally 

 formed; it is broad and well-developed, and onl}' exhibits a 

 median vertical furrow which is the result of the mutilation. 

 The ear-lobe of the son, on the other hand, is extremely minute, 

 one might even maintain that it is completely wanting. In my 

 opinion a cleft is not present at all, but the far higher posterior 

 corner of the ear forms the end of its posterior margin— the 

 so-called helix. But even if another opinion were pronounced 

 with regard to the interpretation of this part, there is one other 

 circumstance to be taken into account, which appears to me to 

 be absolutely conclusive, and which completely 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 



