•2(i(5 Flrxt iiDfl Second Toch In Man 



Sub-'T(ible D. Families in which neither mother ur father in knoiru, 

 designated lii/ H. (homogeneous) and M. (mixed). 

 L S A B E 



of 



Number of 



Fraternities Type J? <??<?? rf?cf? Ofrspring 



21 H. 21 31 — — — — — — — — 52 



11 M. 8 13 3 8 2 3 1 2 — — 40 



32 — 29 44 3 8 2 3 12 — — 92(35^+57?) 



Sub-Table E. Tracings of persons (parents) irho do not appear in 



A, Ji, C or D. 



L S A n E 



' '■ ' ■ ^ Total Xumber 



<J? <J? rf? i H if of Offspring 



57 57 11 23 13 15 3 (i — — 185 (84 ,f +101 ? ) 



Sub- Table F. Total of all persons appearing in aboce tables. 

 L S A B E 



' ' ' ■ ' ' ' ' ~ Total Number 



t H <J?<f5<??r^? of Ortspring 



Total of Group .1 164 150 11 20 7 8 8 G — 1 381 (190,? + 191 S ) 



i3 25 40 2 10 4 4 — 4 — — 95 (31 J + 04 ? ) 



C 22 23 2 4 1 3 — — — — 55 (25 <? + 30 ? ) 



D 29 44 3 8 2 3 1 2 — — 92 (35,? + 57 ? ) 



E 57 57 11 23 13 15 3 6 — — 185 (84<?+101?) 



297 320 29 71 27 33 12 18 — 1 808 (365 <r + 443 ? ) 



Percentages ^ 8100 7223 8-22 16-02 7-39 7-44 3-28 4-06 



Table VII (Sub-table A) gives an analysis of the various types of 

 matings and of the offspring. The total number of fiimilies consisting 

 of two complete generations is 123, producing on the average about 

 three offspring each. 



Fifty-four matings of i ^ yi L % were obtained, which pi-oihiced \'i\ 

 offspring, all of which were L except 4, whicli were A .-md B (Fig. 4, 

 Trees B and C). This indicates that the L type practically bi-eeds true. 

 The persistence of the L type is seen in Fig. 4 (Trees A, B, C). It 

 was not possible for me to see the four exceptional cases, but re-tracings 

 in each case confirmed the type. An enquiry was made into the history 

 of these four exceptions (3 A and 1 B). Tree C in Fig. 4 shows tlie 

 family of one male A in which there is no trace of any departure from 

 the L type. The one case of a male B, as shown in Fig. 4, Tree B, 

 gives an L ancestry of both the male and female parents, but there is 

 nothing here to show that one of the parents was not heterozygous. 

 Consideration may next be given to the two females (Table VII, Sub- 



