no less than twenty distinct variations in the palmaris accessorius.

The famous old anatomist, Wolff (7. 'Act. Acad. St. Petersburg,' 1778,
part ii. p. 217.), insists that the internal viscera are more variable than
the external parts: Nulla particula est quae non aliter et aliter in aliis
se habeat hominibus. He has even written a treatise on the choice of
typical examples of the viscera for representation. A discussion on the
beau-ideal of the liver, lungs, kidneys, etc., as of the human face divine,
sounds strange in our ears.

The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same
race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct
races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said. So it is with
the lower animals. All who have had charge of menageries admit this fact,
and we see it plainly in our dogs and other domestic animals. Brehm
especially insists that each individual monkey of those which he kept tame
in Africa had its own peculiar disposition and temper: he mentions one
baboon remarkable for its high intelligence; and the keepers in the
Zoological Gardens pointed out to me a monkey, belonging to the New World
division, equally remarkable for intelligence. Rengger, also, insists on
the diversity in the various mental characters of the monkeys of the same
species which he kept in Paraguay; and this diversity, as he adds, is
partly innate, and partly the result of the manner in which they have been
treated or educated. (8. Brehm, 'Thierleben,' B. i. ss. 58, 87. Rengger,
'Saugethiere von Paraguay,' s. 57.)

I have elsewhere (9. 'Variation of Animals and Plants under
Domestication,' vol. ii. chap. xii.) so fully discussed the subject of
Inheritance, that I need here add hardly anything. A greater number of
facts have been collected with respect to the transmission of the most