THIRD day's sitting. 65 



little of the forces and materials with which Nature works, 

 or of the laws and manner of her working, to be able to 

 pronounce any decision in a case like this. Mr. Darwin is 

 probably as far wrong in his statements on this point as he 

 now acknowledges he was in what he wrote some years 

 ago about the supernumerary mammse of females and lingers 

 of men. 



Lord G. Pray, what was that ? 



Homo. Why, my Lord, in a former work he " attributed 

 the not very rare cases of supernumerary mammae in women 

 to reversion, from their being generally placed symmetri- 

 cally on the breast." He now finds, however, that they 

 " have been known to occur in other situations, even on the 

 back," by which fact, he says, " the force of my argument 

 is greatly weakened, or perhaps entirely destroyed." (See 

 note. Vol. i. p. 125.) It sometimes happens also that persons 

 are born with supernumerary fingers. If they are cut oflp, 

 others will grow in their stead. This also he attributed to 

 "reversion." Unable, however, to find that there was any 

 ancient form to which such reversion was possible, and 

 finding " the highest authority in Europe on such a point " 

 against him, he very candidly, though reluctantly, acknow- 

 ledges himself to have been in error also on this point. 

 "This extraordinary fact of their re-growth," he says, 

 " remains inexplicable, if the belief in reversion to some 

 extremely remote progenitor must be rejected." (See rote, 

 Vol. i. p. 126.) But why should he not suppose, my Lord, 

 that " some extremely remote progenitor " occasionally had 

 supernumerary digits ? No authority could forbid him the 

 consolation of such a belief. 



Lord C. Yerj true ; but it would not help his argument. 

 Let us hear, however, what Mr. Darwin has to say on other 

 points. 



