But Darwin was not the first to recognize the uselessness and danger of the appendix, since M. C. Martins, in “_Revue des Deux Mondes_,” which was published in 1862, mentioned the fact that this rudiment sometimes caused death. Indeed it is said the ancient Egyptians knew the appendix became inflamed and caused death, but for this we can not vouch. In spite of these _hints_ of Martin and Darwin, physicians called the symptom syndrome of what is now known to be appendicitis, typhlitis or perityphlitis for years, although the cecum itself is seldom inflamed without some pathological change in the appendix. The latter structure, however, is often very badly diseased while the cecum is perfectly normal. The first methodical operation for appendicitis was performed in 1886 by Reginald Fitz, and even today it is sometimes hard to persuade a patient to have this structure removed simply because recovery often occurs without operation. EUGENICS. The same author, Charles Darwin, in the same book, writes as follows: “Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never takes any such care. He is impelled by nearly the same motives as the lower animals, when they are left to their own free choice, though he is in so far superior to them that he highly values mental charms and virtues. On the other hand he is strongly attracted by mere wealth or rank. Yet he might, by selection, do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realized until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service who aids toward this end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man.” Though the above was written thirty-five years ago, little real progress has been made in eugenics. It is true we have laws against miscegenation and against certain consanguineous marriages; some States have passed and other States have attempted to pass, laws making certificates of health necessary before marriage licenses can be issued; if we mistake not, in some States the habitual criminal is unsexed, and in many States this question has been discussed, but ignorance in regard to the laws of heredity is still the rule and not the exception.