[170] Quoted by Prichard, ‘Researches into the Phys. Hist. of Mankind,’ vol. v. p. 463.
[171] Mr. Forbes’ valuable paper is now published in the ‘Journal of the Ethnological Soc. of London,’ new series, vol. ii. 1870, p. 193.
[172] Dr. Wilckens (‘Landwirthschaft. Wochenblatt,’ No. 10, 1869) has lately published an interesting essay shewing how domestic animals, which live in mountainous regions, have their frames modified.
[173] ‘Mémoire sur les Microcéphales,’ 1867, p. 50, 125, 169, 171, 184-198.
[174] See Dr. A. Farre’s well-known article in the ‘Cyclop. of Anat. and Phys.’ vol. v. 1859, p. 642. Owen ‘Anatomy of Vertebrates,’ vol. iii. 1868, p. 687. Prof. Turner in ‘Edinburgh Medical Journal,’ Feb. 1865.
[175] ‘Annuario della Soc. dei Naturalisti in Modena,’ 1867, p. 83. Prof. Canestrini gives extracts on this subject from various authorities. Laurillard remarks, that as he has found a complete similarity in the form, proportions, and connexion of the two malar bones in several human subjects and in certain apes, he cannot consider this disposition of the parts as simply accidental.
[176] A whole series of cases is given by Isid. Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, 'Hist. des Anomalies,’ tom. iii. p. 437.
[177] In my ‘Variation of Animals under Domestication’ (vol. ii. p. 57) I attributed the not very rare cases of supernumerary mammæ in women to reversion. I was led to this as a probable conclusion, by the additional mammæ being generally placed symmetrically on the breast, and more especially from one case, in which a single efficient mamma occurred in the inguinal region of a woman, the daughter of another woman with supernumerary mammæ. But Prof. Preyer (‘Der Kampf um das Dasein,’ 1869, s. 45) states that mammæ erraticæ have been known to occur in other situations, even on the back; so that the force of my argument is greatly weakened or perhaps quite destroyed.
With much hesitation I, in the same work (vol. ii. p. 12), attributed the frequent cases of polydactylism in men to reversion. I was partly led to this through Prof. Owen’s statement, that some of the Ichthyopterygia possess more than five digits, and therefore, as I supposed, had retained a primordial condition; but after reading Prof. Gegenbaur’s paper (‘Jenaischen Zeitschrift,’ B. v. Heft 3, s. 341), who is the highest authority in Europe on such a point, and who disputes Owen’s conclusion, I see that it is extremely doubtful whether supernumerary digits can thus be accounted for. It was the fact that such digits not only frequently occur and are strongly inherited, but have the power of regrowth after amputation, like the normal digits of the lower vertebrata, that chiefly led me to the above conclusion. This extraordinary fact of their regrowth remains inexplicable, if the belief in reversion to some extremely remote progenitor must be rejected. I cannot, however, follow Prof. Gegenbaur in supposing that additional digits could not reappear through reversion, without at the same time other parts of the skeleton being simultaneously and similarly modified; for single characters often reappear through reversion.
[178] ‘Anatomy of Vertebrates,’ vol. iii. 1868, p. 323.