The Editor: Genealogy and Eugenics 



373 



the biological aspect: first, because I 

 am incompetent to discuss the others; 

 and secondly, because I hold that the 

 biological conception has by far the 

 greatest true value, accepting the cri- 

 terion of value as that which furthers 

 the progressive evolution of the race. 

 By this criterion, I believe the historical, 

 legal and social aspects of genealogy are 

 of secondary importance; the greatest 

 worth it can possibly have is in coopera- 

 tion with biology. This definition may 

 appear to be a begging of the question 

 of my whole paper; I shall attempt to 

 justify it farther on. 



(2) Genealogy now too often professes 

 to be an etid in itself. It can, of 

 course, be looked upon as an end in 

 itself, but I believe that it will be 

 recognized as a science of much greater 

 value to the world if it is admitted to be 

 not an end but a means to a far greater 

 end that it alone can supply. 



It has, indeed, been contended, even 

 by such an authority as Ottokar 

 Lorenz, who is often considered the 

 father of modern scientific genealogy, 

 that a knowledge of his own ancestry 

 will tell each individual exactly what 

 he himself is. This, as I understand it, 

 is the basis of Lorenz' valuation of 

 genealogy. It is a step in the right 

 direction : but 



(3) The present methods of genealogy 

 are inadequate to support such a claim. 

 Its methods are still based on the his- 

 torical, legal and social functions, and 

 it has not yet begun, save in a few in- 

 stances, to realize its almost incom- 

 parable opportunity for the betterment 

 of mankind. Let me indicate just a 

 few of the faults of method in genealogy, 

 which the eugenist most deplores : 



(a) The information which is of most 

 value is exactly that which genealogy 

 ordinarily does not furnish. Dates of 

 birth, death and marriage of an ancestor 

 are of interest, but rarely of real bio- 

 logical value. The facts about that 

 ancestor which vitally concern his living 

 descendant are the facts of his character, 

 physical and mental; and these facts 

 are given in very few genealogies. 



(b) Genealogies are commonly too 

 incomplete to be of real value. Some- 

 times they deal only with the direct 



male line of ascent — what animal breed- 

 ers call the tail-male. In this case, it 

 is not too much to say that they are 

 nearly devoid of genuine value. For- 

 tunately, American genealogies do not 

 often go to this extreme, but it is not 

 uncommon for them to deal only with 

 the direct ancestors of the individual, 

 omitting all brothers and sisters of 

 those ancestors. Although this sim- 

 plifies the work of the genealogist 

 immensely, it deprives it of value to a 

 corresponding degree. 



(c) As the purpose of genealogy in 

 this country has been largely social, it 

 is to be feared that in too many cases 

 discreditable data have been tacitly 

 omitted from the records. The anti- 

 social individual, the feebleminded, the 

 insane, the alcoholic, the "generally 

 no-count," has been glossed over. vSuch 

 a lack of candor is not in accord with 

 the scientific spirit, and makes one 

 uncertain, in the use of genealogies, to 

 what extent he is really getting all the 

 facts. There are few families of any 

 size which have not one such member or 

 more, not many generations removed. 

 To attempt to conceal the fact is an 

 action of doubtful ethical propriety ; but 

 from the eugenist's point of view, at any 

 rate, it is a falsification of records that 

 must be regarded with great disapproval. 



(d) Even if the information it furn- 

 ishes were more complete, human gen- 

 ealogy would not justify the claims 

 sometimes made for it as a science, 

 because, to use a biological phrase, "the 

 matings are riot controlled." We see 

 the results of a certain experiment, but 

 we can not interpret them unless we 

 know what the results would have been, 

 had the precedent conditions been 

 varied in this way or in that way. We 

 can make these controlled experiments 

 in our plant and animal breeding; we 

 have been making them by the thou- 

 sand, by the hundred thousand, for 

 many years. We cannot make them 

 in human society. Of course, we don't 

 want to; but the point on which I wish 

 to insist is that the biological meaning 

 of human history, the real import of 

 genealogy, cannot be known unless it is 

 interpreted in the light of modern plant 

 and animal breeding. It is absolutelv 



