28 A NEW TYPE OF BRACHYPHALANGY IN MAN. 



114.8 cf A. H. (Nov. 1, 1858-Apr. 21, 1903). Married in 1900 A. A. L 

 (b. Mar. 28, 1876) and had 2 children, 1148.1 and 1148.2 (p. 32). 



114.9 9 E. H. (May 27, 1860-Oct. 10, 1860). 



114.10 9 Aa. H. (b. Dec. 2, 1861). Married in 1883 merchant R. L. 

 (b. Feb. 7, 1856). No children. 



114.11 9 V. H. (Jan. 30, 1863-Dec. 18, 1875). 



114.12 9 G. H. (Jan. 7, 1865-Dec. 12, 1866). 



All information we have obtained concerning the members of this 

 family indicates that their hands were normal, thus confirming the 

 conclusion that their mother was free from the factor for brachypha- 

 langy. 



Second Family of IV Generation. 



The B !-type brachyphalangous 11.5 cf C. A. B. H. had by his first 

 marriage with his cousin 17.1 9 F. G. (p. 24), daughter of the B !-type 

 brachyphalangous 1.7 cf L. p., 2 children, 115.1 and 115.2. 



115.1 9 E. A. H. (May 16, 1853-Nov. 3, 1913). She married pro- 

 prietor 0. G., d. 1905, and had 3 children, 1151.1-1151.3 (p. 33). One 

 of her half-brothers, when asked, gave us the information that her 

 fingers were "not absolutely normal"; but her own son answered in a 

 letter that her hands were normal, a statement which also was con- 

 firmed by her daughter. A clear case of brachyphalangy is known to 

 us among her descendants. At last we succeeded in getting a photo- 

 graph showing her right hand. Though not very good, this photograph 

 settles the question (jfig. 6). It shows clearly that she was brachy- 

 phalangous to a characteristic degree. The ends of the other fingers 

 are in the photograph hidden, but enough of them is seen to show that 

 she had the B-type of the malformation. The study of her descendants 

 proves that she was heterozygous for the factor in question. 



115.2 9 C. F. H. (May 9, 1855-Apr. 4, 1856). This second daugh- 

 ter, who died one year old, demands special attention. All informa- 

 tion is to the effect that she was a cripple, unable to develop ; but it has 

 so far been impossible to investigate the exact nature of her malforma- 

 tion. This is explained through the fact that the family has inten- 

 tionally not talked about her, regarding the birth of a cripple within 

 the family as a point not to be mentioned. This practice has been 

 followed so carefully that even the daughter of her own sister, when 

 asked, did not know of her existence. The small amount of informa- 

 tion resulting from our very elaborate inquiries is limited to the fol- 

 lowing rather vague statements: 



Her half-brother, a very intelligent man, to whom we are highly 

 indebted for much valuable information, states that ''her whole osseous 

 system was in disorder." Her half-sister knows with certainty that 

 "her hands and feet, or at any rate her fingers and toes, were entirely 

 absent." 



