45<^ SUPPOSED TRANSMISSION OF MUTILATIONS. [VIII. 



gentleman had received during his residence at the University. 

 Strangel}^ enough, the left ear of his daughter, who is five years 

 old, exhibits a similar peculiarity. The posterior part of the 

 anthelix 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 therefore 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 

 transmission 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 

 incomplete 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 mal- 

 formation 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 mutila- 

 tions and the ' proofs ' which supported the belief in the 

 efficacy of so-called ' maternal impressions ' during pregnancy, 

 a belief which was universally maintained up to the middle of 

 the present century. Many of those ' proofs ' were simply old 

 wives' fables, and were based upon all kinds of subsequent 

 inventions and alterations. But it cannot be denied that there 



