218 



Prof. Pearson overlooks the différence. He completely 

 ignores the gênerai problem which constitutes the real 

 subject of my paper and says (p. 199). „He (i. e. Kapteyn) 

 „assnmes that some quantity obeys the normal distribution" 

 whereas there is no question of such an assumption either 

 in the enunciation of the problem or in its solution. 



I am sorry to state that this is not the only inexact 

 représentation of the contents of my „Skew Curves". This 

 is particularly disappuinting in a paper which shows good 

 évidence of the fact that the author has largely profited 

 by the exposition of the theory which he réfutes. 



After perusing this réfutation I strongly feit that it 

 would be right to abstain from any reply, safe that on 

 the question of priority, 



Any trained mathematician would, without difficulty, 

 judge for himself. 



After a while, howL-ver, I came to consider that natura- 

 lists and most of the other persons mainly interested in 

 the matter, can hardly be expected, as a rule, to be suffi- 

 ciently well trained in mathematics to see for themselves 

 were the truth lies. Thus real advantage might be gained 

 by not letting the matter rest. 



It is this considération that made me résolve, and this 

 brings me to my second point, to dévote at least a few 

 lines to a direct reply to the criticisms brought forward 

 against my theory. 



For the purpose in view, however, no detailed reply is at 

 ail necessary. It will be sufficient to show: 



I. That Prof. Pearson actually adopts my theory 

 (which he réfutes) as the only rigorous and gênerai one; 



II. That Pearson 's formulae, even now that he has 

 tried to dérive them from our équation (1) may, at the 

 very best, be accepted as empirical représentations. 



Thèse statements must seem startling. Still nothing is easier 

 than to show their correctness; in fact Prof. Pearson 



