T. Lewis and D. Embleton 
45 
Both the family of Kiiramel* and that of Scoutetten arose from a parent with 
an acquired defect of the limbs, and the last author actually attributes the defect 
to this source. He has been criticised for so doing by Perthes. It is almost 
needless to say that there was no evidence that the deformity of the offspring was 
in any way comparable to that of the parent. With this solitary example, which 
has been successfully controverted, there is no particle of evidence in a single case 
to show that such transmission has taken place. The supposition can be dismissed. 
(d) Arrests of development. There would be no occasion to refer to this 
subject were it not that syndactyly is very constantly associated with the split-foot 
deformity, both in single and familial cases. Further syndactyly has been 
frequently attributed to this cause. Cleft or deficient palate has also been met 
with in two split-foot cases. The question can however be dismissed in a few lines. 
Were the theory of the production of .syndactyly in this way tenable, it would raise 
the needless question of a duplex origin for the combined deformity in the majority 
of cases, for split-foot can certainly not be accounted for in like fashion. But there 
is evidence that so arise few, if any, cases of " webbed " fingers. This has been 
shown by Sutton, Windle and others, and the arguments against it apply with 
particular force to the cases where the syndactyly is incomplete or bony. 
(e) Atavism. This is often mentioned in connection with split-foot deformities, 
but in such an indefinite fashion that it is impossible to understand clearly the 
extent and nature of the reversion to which writers allude. There is a suspicion 
that they have had in their minds forms pliylogenetically remote f. And in a 
few instances '^ the Quadrumana have been tentatively referred to. A deliberate 
statement on the subject no one has been bold enough to make, and not the 
slightest trace of evidence has been put forward in favour of the suggestion. It is 
of chief interest in that Polydactyly has received a similar explanation. The two 
deformities are intimately associated, and as has been stated in the last paragraph 
a duplex explanation of origin is objectionable. The view that polydactyly may 
be atavistic seems to be based largely on the observations and deductions of 
Bardeleben, who investigated the comparative anatomy of the digits. He is 
answered by Sutton, Windle and others, who attribute polydactyly to a " sport " ; 
and also by Wiedersheim, who concludes that from the palaeontological point of 
view the condition of " hyperdactyly " loses its supposed atavistic significance. 
The ultimate origin of split-foot conditions and their associated defects in man 
by a " throw back " can therefore be denied, but there still remains the possibility 
of its transmission by this means. It might be argued that the original deformed 
members have arisen from a common ancestor, and that the malformation has lain 
buried in the intermediate unaffected members of the family. Now an affected 
individual is never to be found arising from a normal parent, himself the offspring 
* Kummel's case is one of split-hand onlj'. It is discussed by this author from this point of view. 
His views on the origin of such deformities will be subsequently mentioned. 
t "Atavistic parts do not belong to forms palaeontologically remote or systematically far distant " 
(Sutton, p. 135). 
