May I here be permitted to make a quotation from an interesting page of Professor Manouvrier upon this question: “That the effect of environment is generally understood in too limited a way, we see proved every day in the appreciation expressed, of the causes that have determined certain differences of productive power or moral conduct. It is a question, perhaps, of two brothers. It is said that they have been brought up exactly in the same manner, that they have received exactly the same education, and that the question of environment is thus settled. Immediately the doctors begin to call in atavism, to feel the bumps of the head, to study facial asymmetry, etc. Anatomy must be appealed to, since the influence of environment has been eliminated. It can be put down to bad luck if some bump, some depression, some asymmetry is not found that will serve, whether or no, to account for a solution of the question. There remains always, further, the resource of invoking invisible, hypothetical vices of the internal constitution. The phrenologists were in a relatively difficult situation; they had to find a fixed anatomical character, a bump for a function specified in advance, or they were obliged to imagine a conflict of bump with bump. The present method is less exacting; it is enough to find no matter what deviation from morphological perfection, without its being necessary to show the connection between this deviation and the physiological inferiority to be explained. But what am I saying? The question is often of an inferiority of a sociological order, and trouble is not even taken to make sure, to begin with, that this corresponds to a psychological inferiority. Yet however indispensable this may be as a preliminary, it is not enough; it must be ascertained that this inferiority implies a functional trouble before calling in pathological anatomy at all hazards.