Crmiiological Notes 505 



was oiie wliiih cimld be safely drawii, eveii by a iiiiiul .so dcvciid of inatlu^iiiatical and Mtatistical 

 trainiiig a« l'rdi'ossor Pearson iuiagiiie« iiiino to bo. 



(ii) Professor Pearson has niet niy criticisni by two dift'oroiit lincs of argunient. In tlie 

 first place, he pretends to be able to deterniinc tlie degreo of probability tliat a scrics of fivc 

 members will coiitain a sixth of a larger value ; and he assorts that the odds are 42,552 to 1 

 against the appcarance of the variability of niy niixed skull seriös ( = 8-389) in a series coniposed 

 of variabilities of the so-callcd honiogpncous series. Surely common sonsc repudiates the 

 legitimacy of such a calculation. But if mathcniatics allows it, what niust also be the odds 

 against the aj)pcarance of the tigun; 7'202 in tlie samo scrics ! Yct tliis tigure actually occurs 

 there, being the measure of variability of the 800 Krench skulls froin the Paris catacombs. 



(iii) Hereupon Professor Pearson changes front and casts a doubt upon tlic honiogcncity of 

 the French series ; iiistcad of the figure 7-^02 lie procec'ds to introduce the tiguro 5'!)42, obtained 

 from some 77 Parisian skulls which suit bis purposc bettor. Morcover lio Substitutes the figure 

 6-085 for the figure 0-446 which Miss Fawcett had used williout, nicntion of the fact that it was 

 the variability of a measurenient which dift'ered from the rest. With these modifications and 

 with the addition of other suitable data Professor Pearson obtains still greatcr odds against 

 the appearance of niy figure 8-389 in a " homogeneous " series. 



(iv) My criticisni, however, is as valid now as it was when dclivcrcd. It was dirccted not 

 against Professor Pearson's later revocations, but against Miss Fawcett's pai)er (for " the editing 

 and arrangement" of which he definitely adniits hiniself "responsible "), in which the variability 

 7-202 is \inquestionably included in a table of variabilities of material, the wholc of which is 

 styled "admittedly homogeneous." Surely Professor Pearson niust see that, by neglecting the 

 inconvenient values 7-202 and 6-440, the fornier of which approaches so nearly the me,a,sure of 

 variability of my heterogeneoua series, he evades the question at issue. What I had in niind to 

 ask was this — where, in the opiniou of the biometric workers of University College, does homo- 

 geneity end and heterogeneity begin, if variabilities of 5-7, 0-4 and 7-2 appear in homogeneoas 

 series and a variability of 8-4 ajipears in a series which has as composite a charactcr as can be 

 imagined 1 My criticisni, if it has served iio further purpose, has at least elicited an answer to 

 this question. In his defence of Miss Fawcett's niemoir, Professor Pearson fi.tes the higher limit 

 of homogeneity at or about 6-5. Consequently the French catacomb skulls ouglit never to 

 have been included in a table purporting to contain only homogeneous material. 



Passing from the mathematical to the biotogical side of the problem, I will admit the right of 

 the matheiiiatician to distinguish relative homogeneity and heterogeneity ; but he must remcmber 

 that the difference is purely a relative one. The Naqada material, if styled homogeneous today, 

 would become heterogeneous tomorrow, should a series of still earlier and far more homogeneous 

 crauia come to band. But the mathematician has no right to conclude, as in point of fact 

 Miss Fawcett concludes, that therefore " we are justitied...iii speaking of a Naqada race and not 

 merely of the Naqada crania." Professor Pearson may be able to define homogeneity to his 

 satisfaction, but in our present ignorance iione can define the exact meaning of racial purity. It 

 may be that the variability of tiie ancient Egyptians is relatively sniall ; but their jiopulation 

 undoubtedly included well-nigh as many specimeiis of "races" as it does at the present day. I 

 have examined "prehistoric" Egyptian skulls in sufficient nuiiiber, to be oonvinced that the 

 Naqada series contains skulls which have niarkedly negroid characters, between which and the 

 more delicately chiselled features of Meditei-ranean and allied peoplcs there is evei-y gradation, just 

 as occurs among t\\cfMahin of modern tinie.s. So also, to spcak of a race of Englishmen disinterred 

 from Whitechapel, or to sjjeak of a race of French peasants, as Professor Pearson would have us 

 do, is to ignore every lesson which physical anthropology, philology and history can teach ua. 

 The truth is that at present we have no ovidence of au isolated race, which has never been 

 contaminated by admixture with other races. We are Ignorant, therefore, of the characters of 

 such a race, of its variability, for instance, in head-, nose- or hair-form. And until appropriate 

 material comes to band, statistics and aiiatoniy are alike powerless to help us. 



