326 Life and Tjetters of Francis Galton 



be by distances between the points or by coordinates taking YCFY and its 

 perpendicular XCX as axes. Oalton preferred on the whole the indexing by 

 coordinates. Working merely with the foiu- coordinates of M and -V read only 

 to the nearest cent, Galton was able to index Dance's 68 profiles so that 

 no two of the ninnericjU fonindue agreed. In two-thirds of the series the 

 smallest ditierence between the ujost resembling pairs was 3 cents in one ur 

 more measures. 



"This conspicuous (lifferoncp, o<|iiivttlent to Ix^ween Jjtli and Itli of an incli in a j)ortnut of 

 the natural size, could never be due to the inherent inij)erfection of the art of measurement, but 

 to some gross blunder." (p. 618.) 



Galton thinks that in 1000 profiles indexed on the basis of the coordinates 

 of X and M only there would be some duplicates and jierhajis some triplicates. 

 Even these would l)e retluced by indexing Urn- L, or j)ossiljly both of them. 

 Galton conclu«les as follows : 



"In the reportof aConunitteeappointe<l by the Seci-eUiry of State in ISOI (C. 7 20.3, price 10(/.) 

 to inquire into the best means available for identifying habitual criniiniiis, th<- following remark 

 appears on p. 18: 'An enormous amount of time is spent in examining the iKwks of photographs. 

 It will be seen from the figures furnished by Chief Inspector Neave that on March 1 last 

 twenty-one officers searched for twenty-seven prisoners — tlie total time spmt Inking 57J hours — 

 and made seven identiGaitions. This was an average of more than two hours for each prisoner 

 sought for, and more than eight hours for each itlentification.' A similar search in a lexicon 

 of portraits of the same size would occupy apparently fewer minutes than tiie above occupied 

 hours. 



I will go no further now into the results of my exjx»rinients than to say that I have applied 

 the above method to |)ortraits of persons of very difl'erent races, and have thus far found it 

 efficient in all of thero." (p. 618.) 



In a paper' publi.shed in the last year, 1910, of his life, Galton returns to 

 his ideas of standard points and of 'jointed' profiles. He simplifies and com- 

 bines the methods we have already referred to. The simplification reduces 

 his description to four 'words' of five figures. But it may well \)e doubted 

 whether the simplification is not at too great an expense of accuracy. His 

 title "Numeralised Profiles for Classification and Recognition" shows that he 

 was endeavouring to combine two matters, which are moreor less incompatible : 

 (o) adefjuate buthrief cataloguing, indexing, oras (ialtontermsiflexiconising" 

 of profiles with (h) reproduction of a profile from what is scarcely more than 

 an index formula. Actually Galton's work does not apply to the whole profile, 

 but only to the portion from nasion, the na.sal bridge to pogonion, the tip of 

 the chin. He takes as his five standard ])oints'': the nasion /♦', the nose tip, 

 or say, the rhinion N, the notch between the upper lip and the nose, the naso- 

 labial |)oint or hyj)ercheilon M, the parting of the lips or syncheilion S — no 

 longer the two lip-tips (see our p. 3'25) — and the tip of the chin or pogonion C. 



' AWure, Vol. Lxxxui, pp. 127-.30, March .31, 1910. 



' Tlieso points are clearly to lie detenninwl by tangents to the profile as dejicrilwd on our 

 p. 325. Although Galton does not here state this, yet his standard types and profiles indicate 

 it. It is doubtful how he (letine« his syncheilion, marked as a point in his standard types and 

 profiles; pmltably it was taken to bisect the line joining the theoretical lii>-tips of the previous 

 paper. The nasion and pogonion are acceptwl names in antliro|M)metry ; I have ventured to 

 ■apply names to the other standard points. 



