A CRITIQUE OF THE BODY-SURFACE LAW. 



167 



olism of the Gephart and Du Bois selection from the means for the 

 64 other men is for each method somewhat too low. Similarly, in 

 dealing with women we note that the values predicted for the supple- 

 mentary series from the original female series are on the average too 

 high, while those predicted for the original series are on the average 

 too low. 



Such differences in sign are of course a necessary result of the differ- 

 ences in the constants of the two standard series of each sex. The 

 point will receive further consideration below. 



In prediction from the Gephart and Du Bois selection, the average 

 deviation with regard to sign given by using the mean metabolism 



TABLE 60. Average delation with regard to sign of total heat-production as predicted by mean 



heat-production per unit of body-weight or surface in standard 



series from the actual heat-production. 



per square meter of body-surface as calculated by the Du Bois height- 

 weight chart is less than that given by the use of the mean metabolism 

 per kilogram of body-weight in every case except the first supplement- 

 ary series. The total series of 64 individuals shows an average plus 

 deviation of only 1.4 calories per day by the Du Bois height- weight 

 chart, of 8.5 calories by the Meeh formula, and of 34.5 calories by body- 

 weight. 



In predicting the values of the 72 individuals from the means based 

 on the 64 other men, the Du Bois height-weight chart gives better 

 results for deviation with regard to sign than does the Meeh surface 

 formula, but slightly worse results than prediction from body-weight. 

 In predicting the total heat-production in the two female series, the 

 Du Bois height-weight chart gives much smaller deviations than either 

 of the other methods. Apparently, therefore, the Du Bois height- 

 weight chart gives the smallest average deviation above or below the 



