Various other anomalies in man, more or less analogous to the foregoing, have been advanced by different authors, as cases of reversion; but these seem not a little doubtful, for we have to descend extremely low in the mammalian series, before we find such structures normally present. (41. A whole series of cases is given by Isidore Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, ‘Hist. des Anomalies,’ tom, iii, p. 437. A reviewer (‘Journal of Anatomy and Physiology,’ 1871, p. 366) blames me much for not having discussed the numerous cases, which have been recorded, of various parts arrested in their development. He says that, according to my theory, “every transient condition of an organ, during its development, is not only a means to an end, but once was an end in itself.” This does not seem to me necessarily to hold good. Why should not variations occur during an early period of development, having no relation to reversion; yet such variations might be preserved and accumulated, if in any way serviceable, for instance, in shortening and simplifying the course of development? And again, why should not injurious abnormalities, such as atrophied or hypertrophied parts, which have no relation to a former state of existence, occur at an early period, as well as during maturity?) In man, the canine teeth are perfectly efficient instruments for mastication. But their true canine character, as Owen (42. ‘Anatomy of Vertebrates,’ vol. iii. 1868, p. 323.) remarks, “is indicated by the conical form of the crown, which terminates in an obtuse point, is convex outward and flat or sub-concave within, at the base of which surface there is a feeble prominence. The conical form is best expressed in the Melanian races, especially the Australian. The canine is more deeply implanted, and by a stronger fang than the incisors.” Nevertheless, this tooth no longer serves man as a special weapon for tearing his enemies or prey; it may, therefore, as far as its proper function is concerned, be considered as rudimentary. In every large collection of human skulls some may be found, as Haeckel (43. ‘Generelle Morphologie,’ 1866, B. ii. s. clv.) observes, with the canine teeth projecting considerably beyond the others in the same manner as in the anthropomorphous apes, but in a less degree. In these cases, open spaces between the teeth in the one jaw are left for the reception of the canines of the opposite jaw. An inter-space of this kind in a Kaffir skull, figured by Wagner, is surprisingly wide. (44. Carl Vogt’s ‘Lectures on Man,’ Eng. translat., 1864, p. 151.) Considering how few are the ancient skulls which have been examined, compared to recent skulls, it is an interesting fact that in at least three cases the canines project largely; and in the Naulette jaw they are spoken of as enormous. (45. C. Carter Blake, on a jaw from La Naulette, ‘Anthropological Review,’ 1867, p. 295. Schaaffhausen, ibid. 1868, p. 426.)