DURING POST-NATAL DEVELOPMENT. 497 



of Meeh (1879), and those of Du Bois and Du Bois (1915), and of Sawyer, Stone, and 

 Du Bois (1916). These we may refer to, respectively, as the Meeh and the Du Bois 

 data. The Meeh data show an average value of about 15 per cent above the Du 

 Bois data. One is therefore obliged to choose between the two, since the difference 

 appears to be due to a consistent difference in results due to variation in methods. 

 As I shall point out below, the Meeh data show a slightly greater value for head- 

 surface, a slightly less value for the surface of the upper extremities than the Du 

 Bois, but these differences are relatively insignificant and the difference in values 

 in the two sets of data must lie in the general methods used. 



The Du Bois data give an average value for K of 1.237 if we omit the data on 

 an infant cadaver and a case considered by the authors of doubtful value. The 

 extremes are 1.15 for a very fat woman and 1.29 for a tall, thin man. Using 1.237 

 as the value for K, and calculating area according to the formula given above, we 

 get a series of estimated areas which in 2 out of 8 of the Du Bois cases are closer to 

 observation than are his estimates based on linear measurements and in 6 are not 

 so close. The differences between the two sets of estimates are slight except in case 

 of one excessively fat woman for whom the difference amounts to 5 per cent of the 

 surface-area. For the 2 normal men K has a value of 1.225, for the normal woman 

 1.256. For 3 thin men the average value is 1.275. In the Meeh cases cited by Du 

 Bois and Du Bois, K has an average value of 1.452. If we take the entire series of 

 Meeh's cases, including infants, and with them the case of Hecker, as Vierordt does, 

 we find an average value for K of 1.444 and a mean value of 1.425. Taking K as 

 1.425, and using Meeh's data and the data of Hecker on stature and weight, we get 

 a closer fit to the observed data than we do by the vise of the Meeh formulae for 

 children and adults in 9 out of 17 cases, a less close fit in 5 cases, and about the same 

 fit in 3 cases. 



Estimating build from height- weight index, we find a value for K of 1.467 for 

 thin individuals, of 1.454 for individuals of normal build, and of 1.394 for fat 

 individuals. For the 6-day, 6-month, and year-old infants, K has the value respec- 

 tively of 1.495, 1.465, and 1.53. For 5 children 2.75 to 13.12 years of age, K has an 

 average value of 1.408 (extremes 1.38 to 1.43). For two boys 16 and 18 years of 

 age it has a value respectively of 1.537 and 1.485. The 16-year-old boy has a metric 

 height-weight index of only 0.01009 (inch-pound index 0.365). For 7 adults the 

 average value of K is 1.43. The extremes are 1.36 in a fat individual 171 cm. tall 

 with a metric height-weight index of 0.01565 (inch-pound 0.565) and 1.515 in a 

 slender individual 158 cm. tall with a metric height-weight index of 0.01268 (inch- 

 pound 0.458). For women Meeh gives no data. The one woman of normal build 

 studied by Du Bois shows a relatively higher value, 1.255, than that of his men of 

 normal build, 1.225. If we adopt Meeh's observed data and desire to make use of 

 the formula suggested above, we are justified in taking 1.50 for K during infancy, 

 1.40 during childhood, 1.50 for the period of rapid growth in stature during adoles- 

 cence, 1.42 for the average male adult, 1.45+ for tall, thin adults, and 1.40 for 

 short, stout adults. It is probable that 1.45 gives an equivalent value for women 

 of normal build. 



