VARIATION IN MAN AND WOMAN. 239 



to perpetuate some of the worst of the pseudo-scientific superstitions, 

 notably that of the greater variability of the male human being/ 

 and that it was the object of his essay 'to lay the axe to the root of 

 this pseudo-scientific superstition.' In fact, as he is careful to tell 

 us at frequent intervals, before he himself entered the field (a field, 

 be it remembered, occupied by some of the world's greatest biol- 

 ogists) all was 'dogma,' 'superstition,' 'nearly all partisan,' at the 

 best 'quite unproven,' I am inclined to think that these terms, 

 which spring so easily to Mr. Pearson's pen, are automatic reminis- 

 cences of the ancient controversies he has waged with theologians 

 and metaphysicians. They are certainly a little out of place on the 

 present occasion. 



In selecting the material for his demonstration, Professor Pearson 

 tells us he sought to eliminate all those 'organs or characteristics 

 which are themselves characteristic of sex,' such being, in his opinion, 

 gout and color-blindness; he also threw aside all variations which 

 can be regarded as 'pathological,' on the hypothetical ground that 

 such 'pathological' variations may have a totally different sexual 

 distribution from 'normal' variations. He decided that size is the 

 best criterion of variability. As to how a 'variation' may be defined 

 Professor Pearson makes no critical inquiry, though such inquiry 

 would very seriously have modified his final conclusions.* 



"What we have to do," he states, "is to take healthy normal 

 populations of men and women, and in these populations measure 

 the size of organs which do not appear to be secondary sexual char- 

 acters, or from which the sexual character can be eliminated by dealing 

 solely with ratios." Various kinds of size are therefore selected for 

 treatment, such as that of the skull, chiefly as regards its capacity 

 and length-breadth index, stature, span, chest-girth, weight of body 

 and of various internal organs, etc., all these, it is observed, being 

 various aspects of the one factor of size. It is shown by careful 

 treatment of the available data the so-called coefficient of variation 

 being accepted as a possible or indeed probable measure of signifi- 

 cant variation that, as far as there is any difference at all, women 

 are, on the whole, slightly more variable than men. Having reached 

 this result the author leaps bravely to the conclusion, that 'accord- 

 ingly, the principle that man is more variable than woman must be 

 put on one side as a pseudo-scientific superstition.' 



* It is true, indeed, that Mr. Pearson remarks that the question ' What 

 are the most suitable organs or characteristics for measuring the relative 

 variability of man and woman?' 'really involves a definition of variability.' 

 But he adds that ' the definition given may be so vague as to beg off-hand the 

 solution of the problem we propose to discuss.' That suspicion, as we shall 

 see, is not altogether unjustified. 



