658 PHILOSOPHICAL TKANSACTIONS. [aNNO 1775. 



the same manner on several occasions of this kind in which he had been con- 

 cerned, his conclusions had always been similar ; viz. that the usually assigned 

 cause of the mother's imagination is by no means equal to the manifold 

 effects produced. And on the other hand, this injurious doctrine is j)regnant 

 with continual mischief to society. It frequently makes women very unhappy. 

 And the fear of mutilating or marking their infants often affects them so much, 

 that they at last miscarry. Having therefore indubitable facts to go on, and the 

 cause of humanity so powerfully coinciding with the truth, is it not right to 

 affirm and maintain with confidence, that neither the longing nor frighted 

 imagination of the mother appears to have any power at all to imprint marks or 

 monstrosity on children } That this is a very weak supposition, entirely void of 

 foundation, directly contrary to all philosophy and experience, and has nothing 

 to support it but a vulgar opinion, transmitted to us from the ages of anatomical 

 ignorance? And is it not more reasonable to conclude, as Dr. Hunter in his 

 lectures has done, that whatever be the defect or deformity in a monstrous birth, 

 it can never be occasioned by accidents of any kind during pregnancy ; but 

 probably has its existence always originating, causa adhuc incognita, in the first 

 stamina of the embryo.* 



Thus have been faithfully related the particulars of this singular phenomenon 

 among the human species, which, to a demonstration, confirm Dr. Hunter's 

 opinion, that the nourishment of the foetus in utero is principally by means of 

 the funis umbilicalis. M. Merry observes, that defective monsters are more 

 instructive than others that have redundancies.-^" If this be true, here is still 

 an ample field for speculation, notwithstanding the few very obvious remarks 

 which Dr. C. already ventured to make. In conformity to the general language 

 of authors, he had in this essay occasionally adopted the use of the term 

 monster : there is however something in that word extremely repugnant to our 

 common feelings, and very apt to leave a terrifying impression on the mind. 

 Why may not the Author of Being sometimes produce variations in the human 

 species, as well as in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, j: and equally exempt 

 too from such frightful appellations ? Would it not therefore be more eligible in 

 the present instance, and every similar one, to explode the common term, and 

 call it simply a lusus naturae ; or with Pliny to say, " Hoc nobis miraculum, 

 sibi ludibrium, ingeniosa finxit natura." 



* Baron Haller is of opinion also, that this is evidently the case in that species of monsters to 

 which parts are added. Vide Opera Minora Halleri, torn. 3, p. 148. — Ofig. 

 + L' Academic des Sciences, Hist. 1720, p. 13. — Orig. 

 J See F. Licetus., J. Palfyn des Monstres, &c. in which are many instances of each kind. — Orig. 



