_Physiognomy._--In addition to stigmata, we have to note another feature which is of more definite significance. Methodical studies made by means of a collection of sixty photographs of children, normal and abnormal, photographs taken by M. Bertillon in conditions comparable in all cases, have shown us that an intelligent teacher can scarcely go wrong in judging physiognomy. The photographs were beautifully taken, and the expression of the faces appeared extremely lifelike to anyone who was used to observing children. We asked various teachers to examine these portraits, and to express their opinion as to the mental capacity revealed. Mistakes were made, as was to be expected; but the correct estimations were always in the majority, and some teachers exhibited a truly remarkable talent for observation; they were practically never deceived. Let us say in passing that our list included a number of doctors amongst the teachers. They were far from distinguishing themselves. Their percentage was not so good as that of the schoolmasters. This difference in competence, which perhaps may appear surprising, suggests the following anecdote: One day, at the meeting of a commission, we had thrown upon the cloth a collection of photographs of children, the very one which we had been using for our methodical experiments. Everyone looked at the portraits and expressed his opinion. By way of a joke we tackled a medical alienist who had a seat on the commission. He was mistaken in his opinion as often as his colleagues who were most ignorant of medicine. It seems to us, and the facts mentioned support us, that stigmata are only one part of the complicated whole which constitutes a physiognomy. A physiognomy includes many other things, especially the expression,--lively or sluggish, strong or weak, intelligent or lacking in intelligence; there is the fineness or coarseness of the features, the beauty or ugliness of the countenance, the ordinary or unusual appearance of the face. All this forms an _ensemble_ which the eye does not analyse, but judges _en bloc_ by instinct, without considering the elements separately, and, above all, without being able to give reasons for its judgment. Will it be possible some day to analyse, to dissociate, and to describe all these very various elements? We do not know. In the meantime we think that every examiner, as a matter of fact, allows himself to be influenced by the general appearance of the subject, and that the impression so formed is not entirely without value.