556 IAfe and Letters of Francis Galton 



method that you suggest is not the best possible, for it would require the space of an extra half 

 line, if not a whole line, in the printing (see fig.); neither does it contain all that is wanted, viz. 

 number of brothers and sisters. Moreover it rather mars the 

 simplicity of the notation. Lastly, there would be unnecessary 

 repetition. After numerous trials it seems thus far (subject 

 to discussion) best to leave all this to a separate paragraph 

 in smaller type. In this nothing need appear that did not 

 relate to an entry in the pedigree. Suppose it is a case of 

 fa s bro 1 son s in which only the son is noteworthy. The para- 

 graph would always contain entries corresponding to those 

 below. In these the brackets mean "self, brothers and 

 sisters"; and the first numeral is the number in it of males, 

 the second that of females, so the "self" falls into the first or 

 last of the numbers according to the sex. 



fa (5, 3); me (2, 2); self (3, 1); sons and daus (2, 4). 



fa^ John; bro t Edward; and so on for every non-noteworthy kinship in the pedigree. 



Of course, this paragraph may contain fa fa ( ); me fa ( ); fa bro a sons and daus ( ); 

 fa bro a+1 sons and daus ( ); and the like, so far as data exist and it seems useful in the case 

 in question to insert them. 



Many complexities due to double marriages or to intermarriages could be made clear 

 in the footnote, the object of which should be confined to explaining the text, not to 

 bothering out all relationships. In brief the syllables with suffixes will particularise 

 the persons concerned, the footnote will tell particulars concerning them which the text 

 does not. 



I hope this is clear enough for you to experiment with and perhaps improve on? Please 

 try, and report. 



I have been in correspondence with Mr Hartog about the destination of the Report 

 to the Senate. I trust that it will be handed to you to send on to Biometrika. A very 

 brief account of it — its title and an explanatory sentence— will be wanted for the Report 

 of the Committee to the Senate, I suppose; but you will be advised by Hartog. I am 

 very sorry about Miss Elderton's illness. I hope it is nothing bad. 



Very faithfully, Francis Galton. 



Hotel dAngleterre, Biarritz. December 23, 1905. 



Dear Schuster, Since writing yesterday I have written out the enclosed as a full 

 example. The complete set of names is more of a luxury than a necessity. Without them, the 

 entries could go consecutively, thus : 



ia 1 + fa; bros + faj sis (3, iii); self + bros + sis (5, iii); sons + daus (1, 0); fa! bro 2 sons + 

 fa a bro 2 daus (5, i) ; etc. 



In this way they would take little room, especially if printed smaller than the text. The 

 fault in this very concise form is that it fails to identify by name the non-noteworthy links. 

 The rated order of birth may not be correct; one wants the Christian names as well, for certain 

 identification. This difficulty could I am sure be got over. How would it do in the following 

 to write the third and fifth lines thus: 



self + bros + sis (5, iii) 2. Charles, 

 fa 1 bro 2 sons +fa 1 bro 2 daus (5, i) 1. Constantine, 



and so on, giving only the names of the persons who come directly or indirectly in the 

 genealogical account. 



It deserves a great deal of care to arrange once for all these and similar matters, to ensure 

 uniformity, and to avoid costly printers' corrections hereafter. You would do well to prepare 

 two or three typical genealogies for consideration. I would send them to Howard Collins 

 whose advice on such matters is probably the very best to be had, and who is always ready 

 to help me. Very faithfully, Francis Galton. 





