348 
A New White-Lock Family (Bartotis Case) 
II. 1. R. H. White forehead patch and white lock. She married but has had 
no children. 
II. 3. E. H. Married L. L. (II. 4). E. H. died at about 40 and had white fore- 
head patch and white lock ; not known whether he had any body patches. 
II. 5. J. H. Normal, married II. 6, normal. She has had five normal children. 
One of these, III. 15, died at 25, the other four III. 7, 9, 11 and 13, all married and 
had again normal families, IV. 11, 12, 13 and 14. 
II. 7. H. H. Normal, married a normal woman, II. 8, and had a boy and girl, 
III. 16 and 17, both normal. 
II. 9. A. H. Normal, married a normal woman, II. 10,. and has had a normal 
son, III. 18. 
II. 11 and 12 died young, but are said to have been normal. 
The family of II. 3 consisted of three daughters and two sons of whom only one 
was affected. 
III. 1. R. J. H. Has a yellow-white lock and white forehead patch, said to have 
no white body jjatches. She married III. 2, W. S. R., a normal. 
III. 3. A. W. H. Died owing to an accident at 24 — 25 years. He was normal. 
III. 4. L. H. Was normal and died at 8 years, of meningitis. 
HI. 5. Normal, died as a baby. 
III. G. D. H. Normal, is alive at 28 years and unmarried. Thus the trait could 
only be carried on through III. 1. She has so for had only ten children, but three 
of them are affected. 
IV. 1. R. R. Now 18 years old, is normal. 
IV. 2. L. C. R. Died at 15^ years. She had the white forehead patch, the white 
lock and white patches on the skin. 
IV. 3. W. R. Aged 14, and IV. 4, G. R., aged 111, are both normal. 
IV. 5. A. R. Aged 9, has yellow-white lock, white forehead patch, but no skin 
patches elsewhere. 
IV. 6. D. R. Aged 7i and IV. 7, G. R., aged 5, are normal. 
IV. 8. Died at birth, and nothing is known of her. 
IV. 9. B. R. Aged 1|, is normal. 
IV. 10. T. C. R. Aged four weeks when seen, has quite a marked forehead patch 
and white lock on his fairly profuse dark hair. No white body patches. 
There are three marriages — non-consanguineous — of affected with apparent 
normals, each of which produce affected. The affected in each case produce affected. 
The character therefore cannot be recessive. We are compelled to treat it as domi- 
nant, but as I. 2 has some normal offspring, she must have been heterozygous. It 
will be clear that none of the affected can be looked upon as pure dominants, and 
in their families there ought to be 50 affected. 
We must leave out II. 11 and II. 12 as there is no record, and IV. 8 who died 
at birth although III. 1 considered the infant normal. We have accordingly 2 in 5, 
