382 
Hereditary Split-Foot or Lobster-Claw 
age, — for his brother born in 1866 is also John S. — do the names Francis and 
Ann S. reappear. The births of William 8. (III. 2), James S. (III. 3), and 
Elizabeth S. (III. 5) are fixed by the registers of N., but another James S., and an 
Eliza Ann S., Charles S. (III. 7), Emma S. (III. 9) and Thomas S. (III. 10) are 
attributed in the registers of W. in four cases to Thomas and Frances 8. and in 
one case to William and Ann S. ! There was thus very great carelessness in the 
preparation of the baptismal register, or our illiterate couple frequently changed 
their names, or there were other families of the same surname and with children 
with the same Christian names in the parish, although there is no other trace 
now of their former existence. Ultimately, therefore, we are again thrown back on 
the statements made by the two survivors of Generation III., who, it may be 
noted, did not give their parents names correctly, or on those of the grand- 
daughter IV. 3, who has, after an interval of five years, given almost the same 
account of Generation III. as she did in 1908, and on both occasions referred to 
III. 2, III. 9 and III. 13, who seem substantiated by the registers, although 
they were not referred to by III. 7 and III. 14. Probably Generation III. is now 
in fairly correct order, although it is possible that two further children — who 
must have died young — namely, another John (1848) and another Thomas (1852), 
really belonged to this pair, who were married in 1837 and were still having 
children in 1866. Of course it is not possible to ascertain whether such children 
or III. 9 and 13 really were deformed or not, although IV. 3 asserted that III. 9 
was normal, presumably on the authority of her father, III. 3. 
In the following account a pedigree number with P. P. affixed refers to the index 
number of the corresponding individual in Pearson's Pedigree in the earlier paper. 
The accounts given there are not reproduced unless there are additions to be made 
to them. 
Account of Pedigree. 
I. 1 and I. 2 are now given and given as normal, because of the following 
legend, recently unearthed, which attributes the origin of the deformity to 
" maternal impression." 
I. 2 the great-great-grand mother of the latest generation being pregnant 
committed a theft ; when charged with the offence she denied it and further 
invoked her Creator to let her child when born have no fingers to steal with, 
should she be guilty. In due course the infant was born without fingers or toes 
and the woman confessed to the theft lest a greater evil should befall her. All 
which account is very picturesque but somewhat unconvincing. As far as one can 
gather, the woman was well advanced in pregnancy ; and no explanation is 
suggested of the process by which the digits were separated, nor of their ultimate 
fate. Perhaps the appeal is to the miraculous rather than to a maternal 
impression. But the legend is so far of interest that it seems unlikely that the 
mother or father of II. 3 were deformed, otherwise, there would have been no 
necessity to account for the appearance of the deformity in II. 3. Pearson gave 
