440 



TABLE I. 

 Little difference of the indices of the parents, great diiference of those of the children. 



Family- a» ! j! 



number j u^ 



Children 



Sons 



Daughters 



1 



1 



<U 0) 



•OS 

 2 



CXXXVll 80 



CLXXIII 80 



CLXXVII 81 



XL 



CXIV 



XXXI Va 79 



LXXXVIk 82 



78, 

 79, 

 76, 

 79, 

 82 

 1181 

 4 81, 

 81, 



,9 83.6 



,3 



,2 



,9 82.1 



,9 



86.5 85.1 



3 87 

 4 '81 

 83, 

 82, 



LXXXVIIrf 



LXL 



XCIIIa [81 



CLXXIXa 80 



79.1 



81, 

 82. 



. j80, 



I 

 8|82, 



8 80, 



21175 



4 84.5 



6j80.5 



5!81.8 76.7 



7 81.9 83.6 80.3 84.8 



8 



9 80.9 84.3! 



XXlIrf 



XXIIc 



LXXXIV 



CLXXVIIc/ 



81.4 81, 

 80.2 80 



84.7 85 



! 

 81 1 81, 



CLXXXII6 83.7 '81, 



7 80 



85.4 

 75.2 

 82.6 



79.7j73.7 

 78.4181.7 

 84. 7| 

 82. 9J I 



80.8 



81.7 79.4 



80.8 81.7 79 

 86.1 



86 '83.1 79.180.6 



184. 8j I 

 80.9 ' 



85.9 79.8 83.1 79.7 

 82.9 81.4 82.5 

 83.8 83.2 82.8 

 81.3 79.4 83.6 79.7 

 77.8 83.6 81.7 82.1 

 78 



80.1 81.7 

 84.7 79.1 80.31 

 i'77.8! I I 



2 80.1 88.8 



82.4 



81.6 



I 

 I 

 I 

 I 

 I 

 I 

 I 



II 

 11 

 III 

 III 

 III 

 III 

 HI 

 III 

 ill 

 III 

 V 

 V 

 V 



The examples of table I and IT may be regarded as the expression 

 of the formula DR X DR= DD -{-2 DR^ RR, those of table II 

 of a more complicated segregation (vide page. 441). When perusing 

 the lists made from the material, we are struck both by the great 

 variability and also by the irregularity of the indices. The great 

 variability renders it unlikely that heredity should simply be deter- 

 mined by a pair of units of heredity brachycephaly-dolichocephaly. 



1) Number of the large tables which will be published later. 



