50 A BIOMETRIC STUDY OF BASAL METABOLISM IN MAN. 



ing means, standard deviations, S. D., and coefficients of variation, C. V., 

 for new-born male (N = 63) and female (N = 56) Belgian babies : 



Mean. S. D. C. V. 



Male infants 3.289*0.041 0.482*0.029 14.66*0.90 



Female infants 3.053*0.048 0.538*0.034 17.62*1.16 



Reducing the data of the Anthropometric Committee's Report 

 to the British Association, 30 we find for 451 boy infants and 466 girl 

 infants : 



Mean. S. D. C. V. 



Male infants 3.230*0.016 0.508*0.011 15.73*0.36 



Female infants 3.151*0.015 0.480*0.011 15.22*0.35 



From Stuttgart babies, 500 of each sex, Pearson deduced from 

 Elsasser's measurements : 



Mean. S. D. C. V. 



Male infants 3.233*0.013 0.439*0.009 13.57*0.29 



Female infants 3.151*0.013 0.418*0.009 13.28*0.29 



For the 1000 male and 1000 female new-born infants measured 

 in the Lambeth Lying-in Hospital (London) Pearson 31 found : 



Mean. S. D. C. V. 



Male infants 3.312*0.011 0.519*0.008 15.664*0.242 



Female infants 3.208*0.010 0.456*0.007 14.228*0.219 



Dr. Rood Taylor 32 has kindly allowed us to use his series of 

 measurements of new-born infants, deposited at the Wistar Institute. 

 These are very heterogeneous racially. We find for his 120 boys and 

 122 girls: 



Mean. S. D. C. V. 



Maleinfants 3.496*0.026 0.419*.018 11.99*0.53 



Female infants 3.368*0.026 0.423.018 12.57*0.55 



A comparison of our constants with those due to anthropologists 

 is made in table 6. Here the signs of the differences show whether the 

 constants for our babies are larger (+) or smaller ( ) than those 

 deduced by others. 



Our infants show a slightly, but only slightly, greater average body- 

 weight than either of the European series available for comparison. 

 In 5 of the 8 comparisons the difference is less than 0.2 kilogram. In 

 general the differences may be regarded as statistically significant in 

 comparison with their probable errors. Our infants are slightly but 

 not significantly lighter than Dr. Rood Taylor's series. 



In variability, as measured in the absolute terms of the standard 

 deviation and in the relative terms of the coefficient of variation, our 

 series show an excellent agreement with those which have been pub- 

 lished. In 7 of the 10 comparisons our standard deviations are slightly 

 greater, while in 3 of the 10 comparisons they are slightly less than 



30 British Association Report, 1883, p. 286. 



31 Pearson, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., 1899, 66, p. 25. 



32 Taylor, Am. Journ. Physio!., 1918, 45, p. 5C9. 



