Today it is scarcely possible to study the development of any creature without comparing it to another. This is because animals, no matter how different they look, seem to share a common set of molecular devices that are the legacy of a common evolutionary history, that are used again and again, sometimes to different ends, but which remain recognisably the same wherever one looks. Indeed, the results of the genome sequencing projects suggest as much. Humans may have thirty thousand genes, but flies have thirteen thousand – a difference in number that is far smaller than one would expect given the seemingly enormous difference in size and complexity between the two species. Another creature much loved by developmental biologists, the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, has nineteen thousand genes – even though the adult worms are only 1.2 millimetres long and have bodies composed of only 959 cells.
Some of Geoffroy’s specific ideas are even being revived. One of these is his notion – on the face of it utterly absurd – that a vertebrate on its four feet is really just a lobster on its back. In the previous chapter I spoke of the signalling molecules that oppose each other to form the front and the back of vertebrate embryos. These same molecules – more precisely, their cognates or homologues – also distinguish back from belly in fruit flies; but with a twist. Where in a vertebrate embryo a BMP4 signal instructs cells to form belly, in flies the cognate molecule instructs cells to form back. And where in vertebrate embryos chordin instructs cells to form back, in flies the cognate molecule instructs cells to form belly. Somewhere in the evolutionary gulf that separates flies and mice there has, it seems, been an inversion in the very molecules that form the geometry of embryos, one that looks uncomfortably like the kind of twist that Geoffroy postulated. Absurd? Perhaps not. It is the sort of uncanny correspondence that one comes to expect in an age of Transcendental Genetics.
IV
CLEPPIES
[ON ARMS AND LEGS]
OF ALL THE DOCTRINES THAT HAVE BEEN OCCASIONED by human deformity, none is more dismal than the belief that it is due to some moral failing. We can call this idea ‘the fallacy of the mark of Cain’. For killing his brother, so Judeo-Christian tradition has it, God marked Cain and all his descendants. An apocryphal text from Armenia gives Cain a pair of horns; a Middle Irish history gives him lumps on his forehead, cheeks, hands and feet, while the author of Beowulf makes him the ancestor of the monstrous Grendel. None of this can actually be found in Genesis, which is, by comparison, a dull read. There Cain’s punishment is exile, the mark is for his own protection, and its nature is left obscure. But then, the link between moral and physical deformity has never really required biblical authority. It does not even require iniquitous parents. In 1999 the coach of the English national football team opined to an interviewer: ‘You and I have been physically given two hands and two legs and a half-decent brain. Some people have not been born like that for a reason. The karma is working from another life. What you sow, you have to reap.’ He took his cue from a Buddhist faith healer.
The fallacy of the mark of Cain flourished in Britain – football coaches aside – as recently as the seventeenth century. In 1685, in the remote and bleak Galloway village of Wigtown, two religious dissenters, Margaret McLaughlin and Margaret Wilson, were tried and convicted for crimes against the state. The infamy of their case comes from the cruelty of the method by which they were condemned to die. Both women were tied to stakes in the mouth of the River Bladnoch and left to the rising tide. Various accounts, none immediately contemporary, tell how they died. McLaughlin, an elderly widow, was the first to go; Wilson, who was eighteen years old, survived a little longer. A sheriff’s officer, thinking that the widow’s death-throes might concentrate the younger woman’s mind, urged her to recant: ‘Will you not say: God bless King Charlie and get this rope from off your neck?’
He underestimated the girl. Some accounts give her reply as a long and pious speech; others say she sang the 25th Psalm and recited Chapter 8 of Romans; all agree that her last words were pure defiance: ‘God bless King Charlie, if He will.’ The officer’s response was to give vent to his talent for vernacular wit. ‘Clep down among the partens and be drowned!’ he cried. And then he grasped his halberd and drowned her.
The executioner’s words are interesting. In the old Scottish dialect to ‘clep’ is to call; ‘partens’ are crabs. Thus: ‘Call down among the crabs and be drowned.’ In another version of the story, the officer was asked (by someone who had evidently missed the fun) how the women had behaved as the waters rose around them. ‘Oo,’ he replied in high humour, ‘they just clepped roun’ the stobs like partens, and prayed.’ Either way, it is here that the story slides from martyrology into myth. For it seems that shortly after the officer – a man named Bell – had done his cruel work, his wife gave birth to a child who bore the ineradicable mark of its father’s guilt: instead of fingers, its hands bore claws like those of a crab. ‘The bairn is clepped!’ cried the midwife. The mark of Bell’s judicial crime would be visited on his descendants, many of whom would bear the deformity; they would be known as the ‘Cleppie Bells’.
The spot at which the women are supposed to have died was marked by a stone monument in the form of a stake; today it stands in a reed-bed far from the water’s edge, the Bladnoch having shifted course in the intervening three centuries. Another, far more imposing, monument to the martyrs stands on a hill above the town, and their graves, with carefully kept headstones, may be found in the local churchyard. Here, as elsewhere, the Scots nurse the wounds of history with relish.
There are are other modern echoes of the event as well. As recently as 1900, a family bearing the names Bell or Agnew, and possessing hands moulded from birth into a claw-like deformity, lived in the south-east of Scotland and were said to be descendants of the Cleppie Bells. We know nothing more about them; they may be there yet. We do know that in 1908 a large, unnamed family, living in London but of Scottish descent, were the subject of one of the first genetic studies of a human disorder of bodily form. Their deformity, known at the time as ‘lobster-claw’ syndrome, is certainly the same malformation that the Cleppie Bells had, though these days clinical geneticists eschew talk of ‘lobster claws’ and speak of ‘split-hand-split-foot syndrome’ or ‘ectrodactyly’, a term rendered palatable only by the obscurity of Greek, in which it reads as ‘monstrous fingers’. This second Scots family may have been related to the Cleppie Bells, but it is quite possible that they were not and that the deformity arose independently in the two families. At one end of this story there is the historical trial and death of Margarets Wilson and McLaughlin, at the other there are the Cleppie Bells and a clinical literature. The mythical element, of course, lies in the causal connection between the two. Nothing that officer Bell ever did could have caused his descendants to be born with only two digits on each hand, widely spaced apart. If the Bells were clepped, it was because some of them carried a dominant mutation that affected the growth of their limb-buds while they were still in the womb: it certainly had nothing to do with the partens.