The Editor: Consanguineous Marriage 
cious evidence of the lack of scientific 
thought that exists almost everywhere. 
Most of the studies of these isolated 
communities where intermarriage has 
taken place, illustrate the same point. 
Davenport, for example, quotes* an 
anonymous correspondent from the 
island of Bermuda which ‘‘shows the 
usual consequence of island life.’’ He 
writes: ‘‘In some of the parishes (Somer- 
set and Paget chiefly) there has been 
much intermarriage, not only with 
cousins but with double first cousins in 
severalcases. Intermarriage has chiefly 
caused weakness of character leading to 
drink, not lack of brains or a certain 
amount of physical strength, but a very 
inert and lazy disposition.” . 
It is difficult to believe that anyone 
who has lived in the tropies could have 
written this, except as a practical joke. 
Those of us who have lived in the 
warmer parts of the world know by 
observation if not by experience, that 
a “weakness of character leading to 
drink’? and “an inert and lazy dis- 
position” are by no means the preroga- 
tives of the mbred. And in connection 
with the latter part of the indictment, 
the hookworm should not be forgotten. 
If we are going to credit consan- 
guineous marriage with these evil re- 
sults, what are we going to do when evil 
results fail to follow? 
What about Smith’s Island, off the 
coast of Maryland, where all the in- 
habitants are said to be interrelated, 
and where a physician who lived in the 
community for three years failed to 
find among the 700 persons a single 
case of idiocy, insanity, epilepsy or 
congenital deafness? 
What about the community of Batz, 
on the coast of France, where Voisin 
found five marriages of first cousins and 
thirty-one of second cousins, without 
a single case of mental defect, con- 
genital deafness, albinism, retinitis pig- 
mentosa or malformation? The popu- 
lation was 3,000, all of whom were said 
to be interrelated. 
What about Cape Cod, whose natives 
are known throughout New England 
for their ability? ‘“‘At a recent visit 
345 
to the Congregational Sunday-School,’’ 
says a student, ‘“‘I noticed all officers, 
many teachers, organist, ex-superin- 
tendent, and pastor’s wife all Dyers. 
A lady at Truro united in herself fours 
quarters Dyer, father, mother and both 
grandmothers Dyers.”’ 
EXPERIENCE OF BREEDERS 
And finally, what about the experience 
of livestock breeders? Not only has 
strict brother and sister mating—the 
closest inbreeding possible—been carried 
on for twenty or twenty-five genera- 
tions, experimentally, without bad re- 
sults, and even with good results; but 
the history of practically every breed 
shows that inbreeding is largely re- 
sponsible for its excellence. 
Dr. Penrose adopts a common atti- 
tude toward these facts. “I cannot 
conclude from them that close and 
continued intermarriage among human 
beings is unattended with evil results,’’ 
he informs us, ‘‘for we can never be 
certain that the same conditions are 
followed in the reproduction of the 
human species as are enforced in the 
breeding of animals. The organiza- 
tion of the human being is so complex, 
and the nervous system so delicately 
balanced, that it is difficult, if not 
absolutely impossible, to establish a 
human type, and to agree as to what 
constitutes good human stock. Nothing 
is more difficult than to find a perfectly 
normal man or woman, and if we cannot 
agree as to what constitutes a normal 
type, how are we to decide as to what 
constitutes an abnormality? Inasense, 
a genius is as abnormal on one hand as 
an idiot on the other, and it is impossible 
to draw a line between a being with 
normal mental capacity and one which 
is slightly below the standard.’’ 
What does all that mean, in connec- 
tion with the marriage of kin? Pre- 
cisely nothing. 
Consanguineous marriage will doubt- 
less continue, for many years, to exist 
in a fog of superstition, but the time 
is past, it seems to me, when any one 
can question the facts from the genetic 
point of view. If we know anything 
3 Davenport, Charles B., ‘“Heredity in Relation to Eugenics,” pp. 184 ff. New York, 1911. 
