VARIATION IN MAN AND WOMAN. 251 



is sufficient to show that for more than a century past evidence has 

 accumulated which indicates that the group of data on which Professor 

 Pearson solely and absolutely relies for the foundation of his argument 

 is modified by an influence which renders it tainted for such a purpose. 

 In view of this circumstance, and of the fact that I had rejected this 

 group of evidence on these grounds, the onus probandi clearly rested 

 with Professor Pearson. In other words, he had to show either that 

 male children are not larger than female children at birth, or else 

 that large children do not suffer more than smaller children in passing 

 through the maternal pelvis. The fact that Professor Pearson gives 

 no indication that he had realized the necessity of this preliminary 

 step is sufficient proof that he was not adequately equipped for the 

 task he has undertaken. 



We now come to a point which is not the less interesting for being 

 entirely hidden from Mr. Pearson. It has been seen that the selection 

 exercised by the pelvis to the detriment of male children is not abso- 

 lutely proved. But if for the moment we assume that it exists, what 

 are the phenomena that we should expect to find, as regards size, 

 among the survivors? Obviously, a more or less diminished sexual 

 difference during life, with a maximum of sexual difference imme- 

 diately after birth* Now this is exactly what Professor Pearson 

 found ! ' Summing up in general our conclusions for weight, ' he states, 

 'it would appear that, except at birth, man is not more variable than 

 woman.' The very great significance of this exception, as affecting 

 any argument on these premises brought against the position main- 

 tained in 'Man and Woman,' he undoubtedly failed to see. Still the 

 exception evidently puzzled him. He accumulated series of data on 

 the subject, and indeed initiated an entirely new and very extensive 

 investigation. But the conclusion remained on the whole unaffected. 

 Thus we see that our author, in all innocence, supplies a valuable piece 

 of proof in favor of that very position which he imagines that he is 

 upsetting ! Tf this is the way that the axe is to be laid to the root 

 of 'pseudo-scientific superstitions' they will certainly continue to 

 flourish exceedingly. 



We have now reached the climax of Professor Pearson's argument. 

 It is from this giddy height that Mr. Pearson surveys with contempt 

 those foolish persons who still believe that the variational tendency 

 is greater in men than in women, and nothing further remains to be 

 said. If instead of hastening to execute a war-dance on what he 

 vainly imagined was the body of a prostrate foe, Mr. Pearson had 

 pointed out, as he would have been quite warranted in doing, that 



* In children dying at or soon after birth, as a result of undue pressure, 

 hemorrhages or congestions are nearly always found in the internal organs, 

 but they are not of necessity immediately fatal. 



