MOXii TJiOSl TIKS. :5i>r. 



In ancient times the appearance of monstrosities were ascribed to the 

 influence of enraj^ed j:jods, and they were regarded with fear or horror ; 

 or they were looked upon as prodigies or freaks of Nature, and 

 described as marvels or curiosities. 



Indeed, it was not until the end of the last and commencement of 

 this century that they began to be studied in a scientific spirit, and 

 their anomalies shown to be only simple modifications or irregularities 

 in the development of organs. Haller and Meckel commenced this new 

 era, but it was not until the philosophical study of this subject had 

 been pursued by Etienne and Isidore Geoffroy Saint-IIilaire, that the 

 science of Teratologji was founded on a true basis. Then it was clearly 

 demonstrated that monstrosities themselves do not escape the general 

 laws of organisation, but own their sway and prove their universality, 

 and that Nature, in its widest divergencies, never ceases to be faithful 

 to the decrees which the Creator imposed upon it at the commence- 

 ment. 



In 1827, E. G. Saint-Hilaire proposed a scientific classification of 

 monstrosities — those beings which had hitherto been looked upon as 

 combinations of different characters or individuals ; and on this basis 

 was raised the science of Teratology by his son Isidore. The labours 

 of these men have been largely su])i)lemented by the researches of such 

 authorities as Meckel, Gurlt, Otto, Jiischoff, Leyh, ]Martin-Saint-Ange, 

 Forster, Dareste, Panum, Lombardini, and others. Tbe labours of 

 these investigators are unknown to English veterinary literature — 

 indeed, the entire subject is nowhere mentioned } it will, therefore, be 

 our duty to notice it somewhat fully, not only from its novelty in this 

 respect, but also from its importance in a physiological and obstet- 

 rical point of view. 



Classification, 



Various classifications of monstrosities have been proposed at diiTerent 

 times by investigators, who generally based tlieir classification either 

 on the notions they entertained as to the mode of formation of these 

 creatures, or on some physical peculiarity presented in their organisa- 

 tion. ButTon divided them into three classes — 1, monstrosities by 

 excess; 2, monstrosities by defect ; 3, monstrosities by irregularity in 

 structure or situation of parts. To these classes Meckel added a fourth, 

 which included tlie herma))hrodites. Martin-Saint-Ange divided tliem 

 into: 1, monsters by excess, comprising the union of several fcetuses — 

 double monsters, in fact ; '2, monsters by excess of growth ; 3, monsters 

 by absence of one or more parts ; 1, monsters by general defect, as 

 dwarfs : 5, hermaphrodite monsters. 



The two classifications which have generally been adopted by Conti- 

 nental veterinarians are those of Gurlt and GeolTroy Saint-Hilaire : that 

 of the former — the eminent Berlin veterinai-y professor — being preferred 

 by the Germans, Italians, Dutch, and Danish, and that of the latter by 

 the French. 



Gurlt's classification and nomenclature are good and explicit, and in 

 some respects to be preferred to Saint-IIilaire's ; wliile tliose of the 

 latter offer advantages which might lead us to give them the prefer- 

 ence, apart from the fact that it is they on which the science was 

 based. 



' A monstrosity is generally only alluded to &» such, or a-* a Luxtu Xalnra ; a scientific 

 classification has not been attempted in this country. 



