Christian Green, that 'the Man in black prickt the fourth finger of her Right-hand between the middle and upper joints, where the sign yet remains'.[296] At Paisley in 1678 Annabil Stuart confessed 'that the Devil took her by the Hand and nipped her Arm, which continued to be sore for half an hour'.[297] At Borrowstowness the Devil took Margaret Pringle 'by the right hand, whereby it was for eight days grievowslie pained; bot having it twitched of new againe, it imediatelie becam haill'.[298] Of the Renfrewshire Coven in 1696 little Thomas Lindsay received 'a Nip on the Neck which continued sore for Ten days'; and John Reid had 'a Bite or Nipp in his Loyn, which he found painfull for a Fortnight'.[299] At Pittenweem in 1704 the 'young lass', Isobel Adams, confessed that the Devil 'put his mark in her flesh which was very painful'.[300] The other form of the Devil's Mark was the 'little Teat'. It occurred on various parts of the body; was said to secrete milk and to give suck to the familiars, both human and animal; and was sometimes cut off by the witch before being searched. The descriptions of the 'teat' point to its being that natural phenomenon, the supernumerary nipple. Cases of polymastia or supernumerary breasts, and of polythelia or supernumerary nipples, are constantly recorded by modern medical observers. 'These accessory structures are usually situated on the chest wall, the upper part of the abdominal wall, or in the axillae, but they have been met with on the shoulder, the buttock, the thigh, and other extraordinary positions. As a rule they are functionless.'[301] Polythelia occurs in both sexes; according to Bruce, 'of 315 individuals taken indiscriminately and in succession, 7.619 per cent. presented supernumerary nipple; 9.11 per cent. of 207 men examined in succession presented supernumerary nipple; and 4.807 per cent. of 104 women.' He concludes that, 'according to present observations at least, supernumerary nipples occur much more frequently in the male than in the female.'[302] Cameron tabulates the positions of the supernumerary nipple in 105 cases: '96 were situated in thorax, 5 in axilla, 2 in back, 1 on shoulder, 1 outside of thigh.'[303] All writers on the subject agree that the phenomenon is of more common occurrence than is usually supposed, but that many cases pass unnoticed unless well marked when in men or causing discomfort by functioning when in women. This view is supported by the fact that, during the recent unparalleled opportunity for the physical examination of large numbers of men, many cases have been published in the _British Medical Journal_ for 1917 as occurring among recruits for the army. The supernumerary nipple is usually very much smaller than the normal; like the normal, it is a modification of cutaneous tissue and is not attached to muscular tissue; its removal is a simple operation, in fact it would be quite possible for an unskilled operator to cut it off with a sharp knife.