A CRITIQUE OF THE BODY-SURFACE LAW. 159 



of a century and more, it is important to make the comparisons between 

 the results of different correlations in such a way as to show whether 

 the surface area gives larger (i.e., closer) correlations with total heat- 

 production or other measures of metabolism than the other measures 

 tested, or whether it gives sensibly the same or smaller values. 



Our differences have, therefore, been taken (correlation for body- 

 surface and measure of metabolism) less (correlation for other physical 

 character and measure of metabolism). Thus, when the constant 

 measuring the correlation for body-surface and a given measure of 

 basal metabolism is larger than another constant with which it is 

 compared, the difference is given the positive sign. 



In men the correlation between body-surface by the Meeh formula 

 and total heat per 24 hours is slightly higher in all but 2 cases (but 

 in no case significantly higher) than that between body-weight and 

 total heat-production. In women the correlation between surface as 

 estimated by the Meeh formula and total heat is in all 3 series 

 slightly but not significantly higher than that between body-weight 

 and total heat-production. 



Taking these constants as they stand they indicate, therefore, that 

 body-weight gives practically as good a basis of prediction for heat- 

 production as does body-surface by the Meeh formula. To this point 

 we shall return later. 



When the Du Bois height-weight chart is used the differences are 

 not so regular. In 8 cases the chart measures of body-surface give 

 the higher correlation, whereas in 3 cases the weight gives the higher 

 correlation. Thus apparently surface as estimated by the Du Bois 

 height- weight chart furnishes a better corrective measure than weight. 

 Since the differences between r wh and r ah are in no case significant in 

 comparison with their probable errors, one can not assert on the basis 

 of the individual series that there is an actually significant physiological 

 difference in the relationships between these two physical measure- 

 ments and metabolism. The fact that the majority of the series indi- 

 cate closer correlation of body-surface and total heat-production is 

 evidence in favor of its closer correlation with total metabolism. 



After the constants in table 53 were computed, Armsby, Fries, and 

 Bra-man 75 published correlations for body-weight and total heat- 

 production and body-surface as estimated by the Meeh formula and 

 total heat-production for the constants published by Benedict, Emmes, 

 Roth, and Smith 76 and by Means. 77 They find: 



T iuh Ta M h 



For 98 men 0.7263 0.0320 0.7747 0.0272 



For 75 women 0.7759 0.0310 0.7447 0.0347 



75 Armsby, Fries, and Braman, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 1918, 4, p. 3; Journ. Agrie. Research, 



1918, 13, pp. 50-51. 



76 Benedict, Emmes, Roth, and Smith, Journ. Biol. Chem., 1914, 18, p. 139. 



77 Means, Journ. Biol. Chem., 1915, 21, p. 263. 



