and other Conceptions of Biology. 199 



correlation of these appendages. So long as differentiation regularly 

 and conspicuously begins at a certain region we can exclude it. But 

 suppose in some individuals it begins at one segment and in another at 

 another, as it almost certainly would do, how should we know which 

 specimens or which segments must be rejected as introducing a con- 

 fusion through differentiation, and which must be included in 

 reckoning homotypic variation ? If differentiation is irregular, will 

 it not change the apparent homotypic correlation ? 



Professor Pearson has determined the racial correlation for the 

 lengths of the first phalanges of digits III and IV in women. It 

 comes out high, '914,* as might fairly be expected by any one who had 

 studied the meristic variations of digits. There is, of course, 

 differentiation between these two digits, so that they may be said to be 

 unsuitable subjects for determination of homotypic correlation of like 

 parts. But if instead of Man, the digits III and IV had been studied 

 in an Artiodactyle, say a Deer, the racial correlation would doubtless 

 have been much nearer unity. In other words, these two digits in the 

 Deer are approximately in the relation of bilateral symmetry about 

 the median axis of the foot. 



In this case the differentiation between the digits is low. They 

 approach the homotypic condition, and their homotyposis could be 

 measured. But a population may consist of some individuals in which 

 there is a high correlation between these two digits III and IV, and 

 others in which differentiation had begun or sensibly persisted. In 

 such a population the racial correlation would be clearly reduced. But 

 would not the homotypic correlation, as calculated, be changed also 1 

 Would Professor Pearson's method show to what extent incipient 

 differentiation had introduced error in the determination of the 

 homotypic correlation ?f 



Yet another and even clearer illustration. The two claws of a Crab 

 are a pair of homotypes. Their homotypic correlation in respect of 

 any character, length for example, might be determined. Now there 

 are species of crab in which the two claws are approximately equal or 

 undifferentiated. On the contrary, in some species the right, in 

 others the left, in others the right or left with varying frequency, 

 is differentiated in size and other characters. Can it be decided in such 

 a case which deviations from, or approaches to, bilateral symmetry are, 

 <ix mriations, to be included in a determination of homotypic correla- 

 tion, and which are to be rejected as due to changes in differen- 

 tiation 1 



On this rather wider view of the facts is it not manifest that the 



* ' Grammar of Science,' 1900, p. 398. 



f If Professor Pearson declares that such differentiation would be " statistically 

 discoverable," he must assume that the differentiation would always affect the saw 

 digit in the same direction, an assumption for which I can see no warrant. 



