TERATOLOGY. — Under this name, which we owe to Geoffroy St. Hilaire, we un derstand the doctrine of congenital deformi ties.* In a scientific sense, it constitutes a part of Pathological Anatomy, and demands our interest as much as the knowledge of those other deviations from the normal state, which is ordinarily regarded as constituting that science. In fact, pathological anatomy comprises all the anomalies of the organiza tion ; those which occur during intrauterine life are called congenital, and those which arise during extra-uterine life acquired. We refer to the former the imperfections of the primitive formation, or what we call mon strosities. They are those deviations of the organism which can be formed only in the earliest periods of gestation, or, at least, pre viously to the termination of the foetal con dition.
The opinions now held with respect to these malformations differ widely from the absurd notions which influence the descrip tions given of them by Aldrovandi, Ambrose Pare, Licetus, Palfin, and Rueff. Formerly, indeed, each monstrosity was considered as the presage of some misfortune, the warrant of divine vengeance, the effect of witchcraft, &c. Lycosthenes used to go so far as to add to the description of each monster the picture of some calamity which was to be its sequel. To that opinion they owe their name, derived from the Latin verb monstrare.
Their mtiology was not less strange and in correct. Rue; in 1.580, devoted a whole chapter to the inquiry, "An homines ex dm monibus et rursus deemones ex hominibus in fantes concipere possunt ?" and about Schottus treated the subject in about the same style. j' They both give negative answers to the ques tion, trusting to have proved by this nieans that monsters are not procreated by sexual intercourse of women with the devil. Other have endeavoured to explain the cause from copulation with brute animals, or with pregnant or menstruating women. Notwith standing our more enlightened modern ideas on this subject, the origin of monstrous births remains still very mysterious. The opinions
concerning it may be reduced to two main points : 1. To the original malformation of the germ ; 2. To the subsequent deformation of the embryo by causes operating on its development.
I. Original malformation of the germ. —If, according to the opinions generally adopted at the present time, the germ may be considered as a product of section by the female organ ism, upon which the male sperm acts with its material and vital influence, we may suppose that this germ may be originally malformed, owing to some influence proceeding either from the female or from the male sex.
1. Such a primitive malformation of the germ seems to exist in those cases in which the same kind of monstrosity is repeatedly procreated by the same parents. The cause may be ascribed :— a. To the mother. — It is a very important fact that, in such cases, various degrees of the same species of deformity are fre quently produced in successive progression, so that the first born child is the most de formed; and in the following children the deformity progressively decreases, and finally disappears in the last born (G. Vrolik, Vexing). Sometimes a deformity of the mother is com municated to her offspring ; for instance, con genital taxation of the femur.
b. To the father. — Experience proves that a well-formed man may procreate with dif ferent women children with the same mal formation (Heckel, Luber), and that a de formity of the father may be transmitted to the child (Burdach, Osiander). The last is however rare.
2. A second proof in support of the pro bability of an original malformation of the germ is found in hereditary deformities ex tending over more than one generation, viz. hare-lip, excessive number of fingers, hypo spadias, &c.
3. A third proof may be deduced from the possibility that the ovarian ova in man and in the lower animals may be already mal formed (Bischoff ).