Wilder: Physical Correspondences 



419 



May Mabel 



Length of nose 60 60 



Breadth of nose 29 28 



Length of ear 58 58 



Breadth of ear 31 29 



Color of eyes, hair, and skin, obtained 

 by comparison with the standard numbers of 

 the tables prepared by P. Hermann, namely, 

 the eye color table of Martin; the hair color 

 table of E. Fischer, and the skin color table 

 of Luschan. The numbers are as follows : 



Color of eyes No. 15 15 



Color of hair No. 8 8 



■Color of skin No. 3 3 



At the time of the measurements the 

 twins were eighteen years old. 



From these tables, which give the 

 actual height from the floor of numer- 

 ous points upon the trunk and limbs, 

 many other measurements may be ob- 

 tained through subtractions. Thus the 

 total length of the arm is obtained by 

 subtracting the height of the extended 

 middle finger from that of the acro- 

 mion; that of the arm alone by sub- 

 tracting the height of the styloid process 

 of the radius from the same height, that 

 of the acromion. Similarly the ole- 

 -cranal height,, which is that of the head 

 of the radius, with the styloid height 

 taken from it, is exactly the length of 

 that bone and may be considered as 

 that of the forearm. 



To apply this, the total arm-length of 

 May is 1,349 — 621, or 728 mm. ; while 

 that of Mc'ibel is 1,361 — 639, or 722, 

 showing an insignificant difference of 

 6 mm. For the arm alone, without the 

 hand the figures are respectively 527 

 and 523. It will be noticed that the 

 height of the acromion difi^ers almost 

 more than any other height, which is 

 due to the impossibility of always hold- 

 ing the shoulder skeleton, with its mass 

 of muscles, at just the same level. 



For this cause there is always fully 

 as much variation in the measurement 

 of the acromial height of the same in- 

 dividual taken at dififerent times ; and 

 as the total arm lengths are so nearly 

 alike in the two twins, it is fair to con- 

 sider the normal, or average, acromion 

 heisrht as practically the same in both. 



The leg height, or that from the head 

 ■of the femur to the ground, is quite 



impossible to get directly, owing to the 

 depth to which this part of the femur 

 is imbedded in the soft, parts. Many 

 workers take as a good substitute the 

 height of the iliac spine, and from this 

 subtract 40 mm. ; others subtract the 

 total sitting height from the total stand- 

 ing height. By the first method the 

 two twins, in the order used here, have 

 as leg lengths, respectively, 926 and 924 

 mm. ; by the second the leg lengths are 

 820 and 829. These last are not really 

 leg lengths at all, but represent merely 

 that portion of the total stature remain- 

 ing after the subtraction of head and 

 trunk, and hence are much less than the 

 true leg length, or that of the femur 

 and tibia together with that portion of 

 the foot used in standing. 



The trunk length, measured to the 

 plane of the ischia in the sitting figure, 

 may either include the neck vertebrae 

 and be measured from the upper plane 

 of the atlas, or may be that of the 

 trunk alone, beginning with the thorax. 

 In the first case one may also use the 

 tragus height or that of the subnasale. 

 both of which fall at about the plane 

 sought when the head is placed in the 

 usual position, with the eyes looking 

 straight forward : in the second, one has 

 the choice of either the suprasternal 

 notch or the vertebra priminens. These 

 heights are in all cases meastn-ed down 

 to the plane of the table upon which 

 the subject is sitting and give the va- 

 rious trunk heights, with or without the 

 neck. With the inclusion of the neck, 

 using the vertebra priminens for the 

 upper limit, the trunk lengths of the 

 two girls are, respectively. 620 and 613, 

 the slight difference being easily ac- 

 counted for by a slightly different de- 

 gree of relaxation in the two spinal 

 columns, causing a similar difference in 

 the shape of the lumbar curve. Using 

 the incisura sterni, however, and thus 

 excluding the neck, the figures given 

 are 551 and 530. These are consid- 

 erable, rather more than in other cases, 

 and although they are possible, it is 

 quite likely that we have here a cler- 

 ical error, made during the measure- 

 ment or the later copying, as the fig- 



