22 THE FEEBLY INHIBITED. 



Now in view of the facts (i) that the father emigrated shortly after 

 adolescence from Germany to America, (2) that he changed his location 

 in America from Missouri to Wisconsin, (3) that he changed his occu- 

 pations three times, (4) that he has a love of nature and of out-doors 

 so often associated with nomadism, and (5) that he had a brother who 

 is a tramp, it seems probable that this case should really have been 

 included in table 5. I leave the case in table 7, however, in order to 

 avoid the possible objection that I get agreement with the hypothesis 

 by placing the cases arbitrarily in the different tables in such fashion as 

 to secure agreement. The conclusion is, then, that there is no clear case 

 of a nomadic daughter whose father is known to be non-nomadic. 



The third criterion, that all sons of a nomadic mother are nomadic, 

 may be tested by a reference to tables 2 and 3 . There are unfortunately 

 only 7 fraternities to consider, comprising altogether 19 children. Con- 

 cerning the sons in family 42, we have only the brief statement "some 

 of her (the nomadic mother's) 6 sons show it" (7'. e., the wanderlust that 

 the mother had) . Whether this means that the field -worker knew only 

 some of the sons, and that they were all nomadic, or that there were 

 some known not to be nomadic (which is certainly not so stated) , can 

 not be decided from the statement quoted, but probably the former is 

 the case, for the fraternity lived long ago and is only incidentally 

 referred to. This family can not be cited as an exception. Family 44 

 seems to afford an exception. Of 5 sons of two "gypsy" parents, all 

 but one are stated to have followed a business which had traveling in it. 

 Of the exceptional son we have no data other than that he was a farmer 

 and died unmarried. This case, too little known, should hardly be 

 considered decisive against the hypothesis. 



The next criterion is that all daughters of two nomadic parents should 

 be nomadic. In table 3 there are 4 daughters, and all of these are 

 clearly nomadic. 



The fifth criterion that half of the daughters and half of the sons of 

 nomad-bearing fraternities of offspring of nomadic fathers should be 

 nomadic may be tested from tables 4 and 5. The expected equality 

 is indeed found in the sons, but not in the daughters. For there are 

 only 7 nomadic to 20 non-nomadic, or as i to 3, instead of 13.5 to 13.5. 

 If we examine all cases we find that in family 17 (from Stier) the fra- 

 ternity is apparently not completely given ; and family 18 is from Stier 's 

 record, which was not based on field-work. In family 49 a we know 

 only that one of the non-nomadic daughters always had bad nervous 

 headaches and the other became demented in later life. Attention may 

 be called to the great deficiency of daughters, which is in part due to the 

 fact that many are not described at all and hence are represented in the 

 unknown column, and it is probable that among the women of whom 

 no description could be obtained there will be a disproportionately 

 large number of nomadics. Considering the rarity of nomadic females 



