[53] ‘British and Foreign Med.-Chirurg. Review,’ July, 1861, pp. 200-204. Mr. Sedgwick has given such full details on this subject, with ample references, that I need refer to no other authorities.
[54] Mr. Sproule, in ‘British Medical Journal,’ April 18th, 1863.
[55] ‘De l’Espèce,’ tom. ii. 1859, p. 299.
[56] Nevertheless Mr. Wetherell states, ‘Nature,’ Dec. 1870, p. 168, that when he visited fifteen years ago the Sioux Indians, he was informed “by a physician, who has passed much of his time with these tribes, that sometimes a child was born with these marks. This was confirmed by the U.S. Government Indian Agent.”
[57] ‘Philosoph. Mag.,’ vol. iv. 1799, p. 5.
[58] ‘Proc. Royal Soc.,’ vol. x. p. 297. ‘Communication to the Brit. Assoc.,’ 1870. ‘The Lancet,’ Jan. 1875, p. 7. The extracts are from this last paper. It appears that Obersteiner, ‘Stricker’s Med. Jahrbücher,’ 1875, No. 2, has confirmed Brown-Séquard’s observations.
[59] This last case is quoted by Mr. Sedgwick in ‘British and Foreign Medico-Chirurg. Review,’ April, 1861, p. 484. For Blumenbach, see above-cited paper. See also Dr. P. Lucas, ‘Traité de l’Héréd. Nat.,’ tom. ii. p. 492. Also, ‘Transact. Linn. Soc.,’ vol. ix. p. 323. Some curious cases are given by Mr. Baker in the ‘Veterinary,’ vol. xiii. p. 723. Another curious case is given in the ‘Annales des Scienc. Nat.,’ 1st series, tom. xi. p. 324.
[60] ‘The Dog,’ by Stonehenge, 1867, p. 118.
[61] The Mot-mot habitually bites the barbs off the middle part of the two central tail-feathers, and as the barbs are congenitally somewhat reduced on the same part of these feathers, it seems extremely probable, as Mr. Salvin remarks (‘Proc. Zoolog. Soc.’ 1873, p. 429), that this is due to the inherited effects of long-continued mutilation.
[62] ‘Production et Fixation des Variétés,’ 1865, p. 72.