234 Bei'vij <iml Bi'ichner : 



have i.'iiipl(jye(l Lee's fornnila No. 14 (!)), wliieh for males is as 

 follows : — 



C = -000337(L-11)(H- 11)(H- 11) + -106-01. 



We have selected this particular formula for the estimation of 

 the cubic cajiacity for three reasons — first, ])ecause Miss Lee herself 

 would appeal' to regard this as the most uniformly accurate of tlie 

 Jiiiiny methods adopted, and tliiidvs that it gives a result to within 

 4 per cent. Second, because Miss Lee's opinion is supported by 

 practical experience in this school, one of our fellow-workers. Dr. 

 J. H. Anderson (11), having proved that the Lee formula No. 14 is 

 all the author has claimed for it ; and, third, because the data with 

 which we shall compare our results liave been compiled with the use 

 of this formula. 



The material employed by us for compai-ison with the criminals 

 has been selected with the special obj».'(.t of establishing the correla- 

 tion, if any, between the brains of the lower grades of society, and 

 of those who l)y education and nature of occupation may presumably 

 1)0 regarded as occupying a higher place in the social scale. If 

 between two such opposed classes there should prove to be no differ- 

 ence, oi- but little, in the true mean of the cu])ic capacity of brain, 

 then we think we should have to look entirely to environment or 

 heredity, for the solution of the problem of the distinction of the 

 two classes. 



Our cioiiiiaj-ative data belong to two groups— first, tliose whci-e 

 the methods adopted are in all respects i)i-ecisely similar to those 

 of the present work, and whicli, therefore, ]X'rmits of a direct com- 

 ])aiisoii between the several results; and second, those where 

 tlu' nicjjiods of working have been different, and which, conse([uently 

 lesti-icls us to an indirect comparison. 



In the formei- group, where the nii'thods of workiiTg aie in all 

 respects pi'ei-isely the same' as our own, and wliere Lee's formula 

 No. 14 has been uniformly employed f(U' the necessary calculati(Uis, 

 we have included : — 



1. Tliirty-five anatomists. 



2. Twenty-five members of thi' tenching staff of University 



College, London. 

 .■{. T\v<j hundred and fifteen medical students of the Middle- 

 sex Hospital and King's College, London. 



4. Four Melbouine students. 



5. An unknown numl)er of members of the Hiitish Association 



for the Advancement of Science. 

 'JMie necessary figures for tin' anatomists, members and teaching 

 staff of the T^niversity College, and for the JJritish Association are 

 all taken from "A Hi'st Studv of the Correlation of the Human 



