FORM OF EXTREMITIES DIFFERS IN INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME SPECIES.
Sir J. Barrow states of the Hottentot that there is not an animal among the numbers that range the wilds of Africa, if he be at all acquainted with it, the print of whose foot he cannot distinguish. The print of any of his companions’ feet he would single out among a thousand. That particular species of animals can be distinguished by their feet appears, then, an undoubted fact; and it is not less true than that modifications in the form of the extremities are met with among animals of the same species. Thus the male frog is distinguished from the female by the presence of a more fully-developed thumb and the addition of a velvety, cushion-like substance to its outer surface, by means of which he is enabled to grasp the latter more securely, and ensure the fecundation of the eggs. The land-frog (Hyla) differs from the common frog (Rana) in possessing a viscous disc at the extremity of each toe, so that this animal can readily mount the branches of trees in search of prey. The courage of the falcon is estimated by the form and disposition of the wing feathers, and that of the fighting cock by the conformation of his foot. But it is to the hand of man,—the emblem of his vast superiority over all the lower animals, that we would more particularly invite attention. The hand of man, like the appendages to the trunk of animals, has a certain definite relation with his whole organisation. As Sir C. Bell observes, “The possession of an instrument like the hand implies that there must be a great part of the organisation which strictly belongs to it concealed. The hand is not a thing appended, or put on to the body, like an additional movement in a watch; but a thousand intricate relations must be established throughout the whole frame in connexion with it.”
The form of the hand, like that of the entire body, is materially influenced by age, sex, and race; and it is not less affected by the particular kind of organisation, the mental disposition, and the temperament of the individual.
Age.—In the minute germ, or embryo of a month, the form of the hand resembles that of one of the lower animals. It puts on the appearance rather of a respiratory organ than of an instrument of prehension, and, being completely destitute of fingers, presents a great analogy in form with the fin of a fish. As the little being increases in size, the fingers become gradually developed. They at first appear as small bud-like projections attached to the perfectly-formed palm. By degrees the several pieces of the fingers become more and more elongated, and at length attain their perfect length and shape; though, even at birth, the relative size of the palm, compared with the fingers, is considerably greater than in the adult. During infancy and childhood the hand retains, to a certain extent, the same character, the hand of the child being soft and thick, with a broad palm and short rudimentary fingers. With the period of puberty it attains its perfect developement, and acquires characters which it preserves throughout manhood. As old age creeps on the hand loses its softness and pliancy, it becomes hard and insensible, and its vigour, like that of the mind, may be said to be gone. “Le cal de la main, presque toujours, jette une ombre sur l’esprit,” says D’Arpentigny. Politics, science, literature—whatever active intellectual pursuit the mind formerly delighted in, commences at this period of life to lose its former charm, to be succeeded by a love of quiet rural occupation. In the language of the author just quoted, “It is when our stiffened hands, become, as it were, ossified and nearly insensible, afford a faithful image of our impoverished intelligence, that we are the most ruled by this mania for agricultural pursuits.”
Sex.—The sexes differ as much in the form of their hands as they do in the figure of the skeleton, and in the general habit and conformation of the entire body. As Carus observes, “He must be but a superficial observer of mankind who could not at once recognise the sex from a simple inspection of the hand. The hand of woman is smaller, more delicate, and much more finely articulated than that of man; it has a softer palm, and joints which are but slightly prominent. The hand of man, on the contrary, is large, firm, and broad, is furnished with strong projecting joints, and a hard wide palm, together with a large thumb, with a strong convex ball or root.” Here, again, we find the physical structure in harmony with the mental disposition—the firm, strong, broad hand of man being indicative of his active, energetic, reasoning mind; and the soft, narrow, delicate hand of woman, symbolical of her sensitive, yielding, contemplative character.
Race.—We have not yet obtained sufficient data to enable us to ascertain any thing very definite respecting this part of our subject. Whether the hand of races springing from the Caucasian stock presents a form essentially different from that of people originating from the Mongolian,—whether the hand of the Negro races resembles or differs from that of the American tribes, must be determined by the future investigations of intelligent and observing travellers. From the few observations that have hitherto been made, it would appear that in the American and Mongolian races the hand is characterised by a preponderance of the motive element over the sensitive, the member being large and coarse, with the bones, muscles, and joints, strongly developed. As regards the dark-coloured races we know that they differ somewhat from the white in the texture of their skin: it is coarse in its structure, provided with a larger number of sebaceous glands, and covered by a thicker layer of cuticle, so that the sentient terminations of the nerves being less exposed its general sensibility must be considerably less than that of the skin of white people.
But the hand not only affords us characters by which the age and sex may be determined, it is likewise an index of the general habit of body, of the kind of temperament, and of the mental tendency and disposition.