THE FORMATION OF. A DEAF VARIETY OF TDB HUMAN RAGE 



197 



Dr. Feet stated that of all the ramiliois ciiibiai-ed in the table '■'■ about one in twenty have 

 deaf -imite children where both parents are deaf-mutes, and about one in one hundred and thirty-Jive 

 where only one is a deaf mute; and that the brothers and sisters of a deaf-mute are about as liable to 

 have deaf-mute children as the deaf-mute himself, supiiosiny each to marry into families that have or 

 or each into families that have not shown a predisposition toward deaf -dumbness.'''' 



Table XXV. 



Name of institution. 



Pupils of the New York In.stitutiou* 



Pupils of the Hartford Anylnni* 



Pupils of tlie Oliio Asylum 



Pupils of the Gronniugen Institution (Holland) 



City of Paris 



Belgium (census of 1835) 



Ireland (census of 1851) 



Yorkshire Institution (^ England) 



Leipsic lustitution (Germany) 



Prague Institution (Bohemia) 



Luxemburg Institution (Netherlands) 



Lyons Institution (France) 



Geneva Institution (Switzerland) 



Russia Institution (incidental notices) 



Bavaria Institution (incidental notices) 



Married hearing 



persons. 



" I Married deaf-mutes. 



Total 



Deduct the three American institutions . 



Remains for Europe 



Males. 

 19 

 43 

 13 

 28 

 14 



7 

 45 



1 



4 



6 



Females. 



29 



2S 



4 



32 



Malcf. 



(iC) 



104 



18 



t) 



15 



1 



Females. 

 77 

 89 

 21 

 fl 

 15 

 1 



188 

 75 



106 



58 



218 

 188 



217 



187 



113 



48 



30 



30 



*Some marriages have been deducted from the Hartford list that appear also in the New York 

 list. There have also been marriages between educated and uneducated mutes, or between deaf- 

 mutes of our schools and semi-mutes not pupils. 



From this table it appears that at the time of the investigation (ISS-t) marriages of deaf-mutes 

 and especially between two deaf mutes, loere far more common in America than in Europe ; and that, 

 except among the pupils of the New York Institution, there were twice as many deaf-mute men icith 

 hearing icives, as deaf-mute women icith hearing husbands. 



Principals of iustitutious for the deaf and dumb have personal knowledge of their iiupils, and 

 may therefore be able to arrive at correct conclusions regarding the results of intermarriage. 



It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for others to arrive at an independent conclusion 

 from the data published in the institution reports. It is even impossible to ascertain from these 

 reports the mere number of the deaf offspring recorded as born to the pupils. The nature of the 

 difticulty will be understood by an example. From the 1S77 rejiort of the American Asylum we 

 find that — 



George W. A (born about 1803) "married a deaf-mute" and had 3 deaf children. 



Mary E (born about 180S) "married a deaf-mute" and had 3 deaf children. 



Jonathan M (born about 1814) "married a deaf-mute" and had 3 deaf children. 



Paulina B (born about 1817) "married a deaf-mute" and had 3 deaf children. 



Now the query presents itself, "how many deaf children were born to these pupils?" Perhaps 



Mary E was the wife of George "W. A , and Paulina B the wife of Jonathan M , 



in which case there are only G deaf children in all. It is possible, however, that in such cases the 

 males and females were not related in marriage, and upon this supposition there were 12 deaf 

 children. 



