I. Instances among Animals.

We are told by Sir Kenelm Digby^*, that the tail of a cat
having been cut off when young, some of the kittens, which she
afterwards brought forth, were always without tails. Nath.
Highmore^†, who in explaining the nature of generation
differs so much from Sir Kenelm, says that he saw a bitch
which wanted almost the whole tail from the rump, and that
the half of her young were brought into the world with
tails, and the other half without. Buffon^‡ asserts that he
saw dogs, the ears and tails of which had been cropped for
many generations, and which transferred this mutilation,
either totally or in part, to their posterity.

M.R. Masch, of New Strelitz, gives an account, in the
Naturforscher^§, of a butcher’s dog, the tail of which, ac-
cording to custom, had been cut off, and which having co-
pulated with a she-wolf, that had been caught, the latter
produced three bastards. Among these was a male, half
grey like the father, and born with a cropped tail; so that the
casual mutilation of the dog, as the author says, was trans-
ferred to this bastard.

We are told by D. Forster^‖, that it has been remarked in
[Seite 3] England, that when horses are continually docked, and both
stallions and mares kept so for many generations, the foals,
at last, come into the world with some articulations fewer
in the tail. Buffon^* has enlarged pretty fully on this sub-
ject, and endeavoured to prove, by the help of anatomy, that
the callosities on the breast-bone and knees of the camel are
merely the consequence of their subjection, and the force by
which these animals of burden, as is well known, are obliged
to kneel down; and as the young camels, when brought
forth, have callosities of the like kind, he gives this as a
proof of the hereditary transmission of such variations pro-
duced by art.

II. Instances among the Human Species.

Cardan^† speaks of the well known ancient custom of
the Peruvians of Puerto Viego, who pressed between boards
the heads of their new-born children. This custom, how-
ever, became afterwards like a second nature; so that, in the
course of time, children were brought into the world with
heads formed in that singular manner: and Cardan expressly
says, that this flatness of the head was originally the work of
art, and not of nature. Constat igitur, to use his own ex-
pressions, humanam formam multis modis variari, tum arte,
tum diuturna successione. Hippocrates, in his work upon air,
water and climate, mentions something of the like kind in
regard to the Macrocephali, a people on the borders of the
Black Sea, who pressed the heads of their new-born children;
and this practice repeated, through many generations, pro-
duced at length an hereditary distinction; so that the chil-
dren were born with heads of a particular form. ‘“At first,”’
says he^‡, ‘“the practice of the Country seems to have been
the cause of this conformation; but custom afterwards be-
[Seite 4] came nature. Those who had the largest heads were con-
sidered as the noblest; and for this reason the Macrocephali
pressed the yet pliable tender heads of their children with
their hands, and forced them to extend in length by bandages
and other means. This artificial process gave occasion to the
subsequent increase of size in the head among these people,
so that artificial means were no longer requisite for that pur-
pose.”’ Hippocrates, however, adds in a short section: ‘“That
in his time their heads had no longer that singular form
completely, because they had entirely neglected the above
artificial means of formation.”’ But that this very little con-
tradicts his preceding account and opinion is shewn by the
intermediate passages, where he endeavours to explain the
phenomenon from his well known theory of generation.
‘“The generative matter,”’ says he, ‘“is collected from all
parts of the body. From sound bodies it comet sound, and
from diseased bodies diseased. Now, as bald heads, blue
eyes, and overgrown bodies are transmitted in families, and
the like rule takes place in other circumstances of conforma-
tion, why should not children with great heads be produced
by great headed parents?”’ Hippocrates, therefore, evidently
meant only that in the course of time Nature sometimes
abandons forms she has assumed, and returns again to the
original.

Aristotle, in his work on the generation of animals, speak-
ing of the grounds on which the theory of’ Hippocrates re-
specting generation is founded, says: ‘“It is very probable
for this reason, besides others, that children not only resemble
their parents in internal and innate properties, but even in
external marks which are merely casual; for there are in-
stances of moles being transmitted from parents to their
children, and on the very same parts of the body. He him-
self quotes a Chaldean, who, having a mole on his arm, trans-
mitted it to his son, though in the latter it was not so appa-
rent as in the father. Pliny also, where he treats of marks,
moles, and the like, being sometimes inherited by children,
[Seite 5] adds, by way of example: Quarto partu Dacorum originis
nota in brachio redditur. In my opinion, this passage alludes
to the hereditary transmission of moles among the Dacians,
Illyrians, etc. who, according to the testimony of many of
the Ancients, were distinguished by this singularity.’

The late M. Osann once came to me, full of astonishment,
and told me that he had met with a similar instance in the
family of a staff-officer, who lived in the neighbourhood.
The father in his younger days had received a wound in the
little finger of his right hand, which had been rendered
crooked during the cure; and his son and daughter were
born each with the little finger of the same hand crooked. I
have since seen both the father and daughter, and have been
convinced, by inspecting their hands, of the truth of the above
information.

A literary man of very great acuteness, when conversing
with me on this subject, started the following objection:
‘“If artificial mutilations can become hereditary, children
born of circumcised parents must often be born without the
foreskin, which does not appear to be the case.”’ At that
time I was acquainted with only one instance of this kind
in Steph. Gerlach’s Journal; but one example did not ap-
pear to me to be of any peculiar weight. I, however, once
happened to ask a Jew of this place, a man not destitute of
learning, and well acquainted with the ritual of his nation
respecting this circumstance, and was told that it frequently
happened that the children of the Jews were brought into
the world with so short a foreskin that it required an ex-
perienced and careful hand to circumcise them. This in-
nate deficiency is distinguished by a particular Hebrew ap-
pellation, nauld mohl, or born circumcised. His own father,
who had circumcised above 700 boys, and who was cele-
brated on account of his expertness in this case, not at all
uncommon, often spoke of the difficulty of performing the
operation under such circumstances. In a word, what had
appeared to an argument against the hereditary transmis-
[Seite 6] sion of artificial mutilations, became unexpectedly an im-
portant argument in its favour. I will, however, readily
acknowledge, that all the cases above mentioned may not be
of equal authenticity, and equally incontrovertible; but even
though the least improbable should be rejected, there will
still remain, to support; the probability of the thing, as many
as could be desired for a proposition which cannot well be
proved by direct experiments made for the purpose.