‘e - 
? 
? 
XIV, 3 Acosta-Sison and Calderon: Pelvimetry 255 
TABLE I.—Pelvic measurements of Filipino women. 
[Measurements are in centimeters.] 
Multiparz; 780 cases, Primipare; 457 cases. | 
Average. Diameter. Average. | Diameter. 
Dianteter. fee pe 
: Inner ; Inner 
yroee deny eee permed nylon de ad bea 
bone. bone. 
RI ee eng ee ok 28.74 | 20.58 15.9 25.0 | 23.69 | 20.245 16.0 | 23.3 
RON ee ee es a 25.4 | 22.339 19.0 27.0 | 25.89 | 22.29 19.1} 26.8 
IRR ee ss ee Ng 27. 62 24.1 3 eS eee 27. 473 23.0; 32.0 
RGU BIORGUO 8 sos ice cee 17.7 | 16.695 14.1 20.1} 17.59 | 16.32 14.2} 19.0 
Diagonal conjugate . 2.525.224)... 11.389 10.0 gb. dE Bs needle 11.88 9.5; 18.0 
Outlet anteroposterior.________|_______- 11. 058 9.0 ge, iy Be neem 10. 95 9.0; 13.0 
BRCINOOROTE) 3 oc ca Se ee 9. 883 7.5 \ Re i Baatogeer a 9.21 7.71 12.0 
Anterior sagittal _..........____]__.. taf BOL 4.0 La i RE oe 5.2 3.8 6.3 
Posterior sagittal. 5 8.414 6.1 htt saath 8.4 6.0; 10.7 
intertiberel 535 a 11.111 8.0 5 ts ener 2 10.7 8.7; 13.5 
2 In comparing the Filipino measurements with those of other nationalities, the figures 
in this column have been used for the spines, the crests, and Baudelocque’s diameter. 
also shows that the published pelvic measurements most closely 
corresponding to the Filipino average are not those of the Ne- 
gress, but those of the average contracted pelvis among white 
Americans (see Table II). 
Here the authors wish to open a new line of investigation 
by asking a question. Eliminating the varieties of pelves caused 
by injuries or disease such as rickets, osteomalacia, etc., is it 
not possible that this average contracted pelvis among white 
Americans represents not an abnormality, but rather the normal 
pelvis of the southern European element in the composite Amer- 
ican population? The great majority of native-born Americans 
are of northern European stock, and the southern European 
element would appear as a minor, or abnormal, type. The great 
difference between the average Negro pelvis of Riggs and that 
of the average white American is at once apparent upon the most 
casual comparison of their measurements. Is it not most natural 
to suppose, then, that the Asiatic races would present a type or 
types of pelvis different from both that of the Negro and that of 
the average white American? It seems to the writers that there 
is room here for much fruitful investigation. 
Anthropologists have discovered that the publication of 
average measurements is the surest way of concealing rather 
than of demonstrating racial types. This is particularly true 
where the people measured are unquestionably of mixed race. 
