If, as is usually the case, the expectant mother spends the days of waiting dreaming of the great things her unborn one will some day accomplish, no one will censure her, however fantastic and impossible her daydreams may be. That she should occupy herself in this way is only natural, and even though her dreams may not be possible of realization they solve the problem of keeping the mother cheerful. Cheerfulness, we know, is a great aid to digestion and good health generally, and if the mother, upon whom the child depends for its nourishment, has health, health will most likely be the inheritance of the child. Today, of course, intelligent people do not believe that it is possible to mould the child into a genius of some kind by the power of the mother's will. This idea is so absurd as to warrant no serious consideration.

There are, however, many expectant mothers who spend the days of waiting in mental torture. For one reason or another they believe, or fear, that their expected ones will be born physically or mentally blemished, "marked" is the term usually employed. Con-sequently they are very unhappy and actually dread confinement. Because fear upsets the normal functions of the body, indigestion, insomnia, nervousness and other troubles arise; and since a disordered state of the system has a more or less detrimental effect upon the blood, the unborn child may not receive proper nourishment. This is more apt to occur if the worry is of long duration; transient fears or slight shocks have practically no effect upon the child.

Those who believe in the marking of children, or maternal impressions, contend that an emotion of some kind experienced by one pregnant may affect the child in some specific manner. For example, fear caused by a drunken man may cause the child to stagger like a drunken person. Even the sight or thought of an abnormality of any kind is said to have a particular influence; for example, the sight of a deformed person may cause deformity in the child, even though the mother was not particularly concerned at the time.

If we studied the history of this belief we would find that it has existed for ages. In old books numerous cases are recorded to support it, and these same cases are quoted in many modern works. If these stories were open to investigation they could be disproved easily, and the causes of the abnormalities assigned to reasons more in accord with science. Doubtless our neighbours may be able to quote cases, but these are, as a rule, old wives' tales, pure fictions, or cases embellished by vivid imaginations. The belief is purely superstitious and has no scientific basis on which to rest.

Negative evidence alone should be sufficient to disprove the belief in "marks." By birthmarks we exclude small nevi, or strawberry marks, occurring on the face or other part of the skin; these are dilatations of the blood vessels, and are simply slight faults in development which can usually be eradicated. We refer particularly to gross markings, so-called, as idiocy, paralysis, peculiar mannerisms or features said to have been caused in a definite manner.

If it were possible to transmit a maternal impression to the child in the womb, the impression would have to pass by way of the nervous system. The blood does not carry thoughts. As long as the nerves in my arm are intact, I can move my arm when I will to do so. However, if the nerves are damaged I cannot move the arm, no matter how much blood the arm receives. It so happens that there is no nervous connection between the mother and child; the womb has nerves, of course, but these do not come in contact with the child; furthermore, the nerves of the womb are not under the control of the will. The only connection between the mother and child is through the blood, and even the blood does not pass directly from mother to child. Consequently there is no evidence physiologically to support the belief.

Experience shows us, too, how fallacious is this idea. Bischoff in 11,000 confinements could not find a single case of maternal impressions. John Hunter stated that for many years all the women who came to a large maternity hospital in London were asked on admission if anything had particularly affected their minds; their answers were written down. In no case could a relation be found between the recorded answers and the few blemishes discovered on the birth of the children, though the mothers readily thought of something once they learned the nature of the mark. Again, we can learn how little influence mental shocks have on "marking" the child by reading the reports of Resnevic and Pesta-lozzi, who delivered 60 women who had undergone all the terrors of the last Italian earthquake; many of these mothers had been buried under ruins for hours, yet all gave birth to living, normal babies. During the late war countless women saw sights and endured much that certainly should have blemished their unborn ones if the theory of marking were true; however, we find in these cases no evidence for the theory. Moreover, we see daily numerous malformations in the animal and vegetable kingdom without attributing them to maternal influences. And, if there were anything in the theory of maternal impressions, monstrosities should be the rule and not the exception, considering how impossible it is for a woman to go through a pregnancy without receiving an unfavourable impression of some kind.

Of course it will not be hard to And cases that apparently favour the theory of birthmarks., A little study will disprove them. For example, the writer has encountered an epileptic idiot said to have been marked by a seal; study showed that several of his near relatives were epileptic and feeble-minded; his defect was purely a matter of heredity. A boy who had a staggering gait was said to have been marked by a drunken man; his defect was due to a disease of the brain which causes a drunken-like gait.

It is chiefly idiots and imbeciles who are termed marked children, the many peculiarities of these being striking. In a study of 300 defectives, the writer1 found many said to have been marked, and many of whom showed traits somewhat similar to those of birds, monkeys, dogs, and other animals. However, in not a single instance could a case of marking be proved, and in practically every case the cause could be assigned to a poor heredity, accident at birth, disease in early life, etc. If idiots and imbeciles make noises like animals, and act like animals, such is because it is characteristic of low grade defectives to act in this fashion. As a rule, the parents fail to see the resemblance to a certain animal; it is usually a person of a fanciful turn of mind who points it out.

Marked children, therefore, do not exist, at least no children blemished because of a maternal impression. If children are born blemished this can be explained in many ways. Some defects are hereditary; others are due to diseased conditions of the cells which go to form the child, to faulty development in utero, birth accidents, etc. If a child has an average heredity, if the mother keeps herself in good health during pregnancy and has adequate care before, during, and after confinement she is practically sure to bring forth a normal child.

Since the theory of marking children has no scientific evidence to support it, and since it is disbelieved by those who understand the causes of defective children, there is no reason why the expectant mother should worry herself over the possibility of her child's being born blemished. Countless women who have so worried have found that their imaginary troubles never happened. Moreover, she should refuse to listen to those busybodies who seem to find delight in narrating to the expectant mother tales of "marked" children; if she has any doubts the best person to answer them is the family physician. Only pleasant thoughts should be entertained, and no matter how fanciful these may be, they are infinitely more likely to be realized than those morbid thoughts as fill the mind of the person who broods about birthmarks.

1 Medical Record, Dec. 28, 1918.

Another fairly common worry of the expectant mother is confinement, because the period is supposed to be accompanied by pains such as are the lot of no one at any other time. If many young wives are tormented by this thought, then we can trace it to the ignorance of such women as seem to delight in causing suffering by their exaggerated tales. One hears not infrequently a woman who has borne children say to a youthful person who complains of a toothache, for example: "Oh, that's nothing. Wait till you have a baby." The remark may be intended more or less jocosely, but it in spires a great fear, and much mental torture. We can-not honestly say that confinement is painless, but we can say honestly that its pains have been much exaggerated. As a rule, the pains of labour last but 12 hours in a primipara, and they are not constant throughout this time, nor do they cause anything like agony. Many women bear children quite easily; because a few may have had what is called a hard time, we must not consider these the rule but the exception. If the ex-pectant mother places herself in the hands of a competent obstetrician, and is mindful of the hygiene of pregnancy, she is quite certain to pass through confine-ment comfortably and safely. Should it so happen that the pains are of exceptional severity, we may depend upon the physician to ease them. If the expectant mother will refuse, absolutely, to let the exaggerated tales of crape-hangers bother her, she will not only show wisdom but find that she has saved herself much futile and needless worry.