3o6 



The Journal of Heredity 



Henry Clay 

 William Pickering 

 John Randolph 

 Thomas Ik-nton 

 John C. Calhoun 

 Edward Hverett 

 Rufus Choate 

 Charles Sumner 

 Stephen A. Douglas 

 Wendell Phillips 

 W. H. Seward 

 Robert Tooms 

 JetTerson Davis 

 Abraham IJncoln 

 Alexander H. Stephens 



large 

 large 



average 

 large 



average 



average 

 long 

 long 



average 

 long 

 large 



average 



average 

 large 



average 



Here the ratios are 23 long or large, 

 16 average, and one small or short. 

 The check opinion is 22-17-1. The 

 names are not quite so eminent as 

 those from England and the ratios of 

 long and large against the other two are 

 not quite so weighty; but the figures 

 are not large enough for this to be 

 worth more than a suggestion. One 

 thing these tests demonstrate is 

 that the method itself is sound. 

 They show that two persons can look 

 over a series of portraits and (without 

 one knowing what the other has 

 done) receive very similar impressions. 



The next test is taken from nineteen 

 portraits of modern American "captains 

 of industry." .All but about two of 

 these are well known to e\eryone. 



"Millionaires and Kings of Industry" 

 by J. Burnley, 1901. 



A. Carnegie 

 J. D. Rockefeller 

 P. D. Armour 

 W. A. Clark 

 Jay Gould 

 C. M. Schwab 

 C. T. ^'erkes 

 J. P. Morgan 

 Sir Hiram Maxim 

 ('.. M. Pullman 

 C. R. Flint 

 Thomas Kdison 

 W. Cramp 

 James J. Hill 

 James (i. Pennett 

 (-laus Sprcrkels 

 John Wanamaker 

 Henry Clews 

 F"rederi<k Pabst 



It may be noti 

 whose nose is ac 

 tainly not as wi( 

 all the others 



ced that one of those 

 Ijudged small is cer- 

 lely known as nearl\- 



The ratios are thirteen large or 

 long, four a\'erage, and two short or 

 small. The check opinion gives 11-7-1. 

 This collection is interesting as exem- 

 plifying more modern processes of rep- 

 resentation. It is difficult to say 

 just where these men should be rated 

 in comparison with the astronomers, 

 oratois and statesmen given in the 

 foregoing tests; but it does not matter 

 for the purposes at hand. They are 

 certainly a representative group and, 

 as far as their own fields are concerned 

 (practical in\ention, organization and 

 business enterprise), they are very 

 much more eminent than the thousands 

 of others in the same fields who are 

 what may be called "successful" or 

 "distinguished." They are certainly 

 very widely known and "famous" in the 

 dictionary sense of the word. Whether 

 they are more meritorious than others 

 not so widely known, or whether they 

 are really more intellectual or not, 

 may be a matter of debate. But if 

 we can show that the lesser sort of men 

 in their own department of activity 

 hiive, on the a\erage, noses less large 

 than they, it is indicati\e of something. 

 It cannot be mere chance. 



"Who's Who in America" has been 

 much used in sociological studies. 

 Such a list, containing as it does about 

 20,000 names, gives an average emi- 

 nence well above mediocrity yet well 

 below "celebrit\," "world-eminence," 

 "greatness" or whate\er word is chosen 

 for your one man in a million or 

 more. There are no portraits in 

 "Who's W'ho in America," but the 

 Canadian Who's Who, which bears 

 the title "Who's Who and Why," is 

 replete with portraits. As the total 

 population of Canada is only about 

 se\en millions and this book is about 

 half as large as the American "Who's 

 Who," it is fair to say that the standard 

 of inclusion is there lower, but this is 

 rather an ad\antage than otherwise. 

 The Canadian work contains a very 

 high proportion of the Scotch race, 

 and a good many of F'rench and Irish 

 origin, so that for some purposes it 

 might lead to wrong conclusions, but 

 probal)l\- not in this in(]uiry. An ex- 



