l62 REPORT ON BONES PROM HARLYN BAY. 



and Topinard's material, devised a scheme for the estimation of 

 stature, which I still think to be about the most simple and 

 practical in the field. Though based on the length of the femur 

 only, yet as it automatically provides for the greater proportionate 

 length of limb in tall persons, I believe it yields fairly good 

 results ; — and more than fair results, more than an approach to 

 accuracy, cannot be attained even when four or more long bones 

 are taken into account. My plan consists in adding 1 3 inches to 

 thrice the length of the femur in English, or 330 millimeters to 

 thrice its length in French measure, together with half the excess 

 of length, if any, beyond 19 inches or 480 millimeters. In the 

 case of women, read 12*5 and 17'5 instead of 13 and 19, or 320 

 and 445 for 330 and 480. It will be observed that, except in the 

 case of absolute dwarfs, the 13 inches added is always less than 

 the length of the femur ; and the longer that bone is, the less 

 proportion does 13 inches, or 33 centimeters, bear to that length, 

 and the larger proportion does the length of the femur bear 

 to the entire stature. It would not be very difficult to construct 

 a similar shifting yet simple rule for the other long bones ; but 

 as Manouvrier and Pearson have both worked ou.t rules from 

 EoUet's data, it is scarcely worth while to do so. 



Rollet of Lyon, who was the next in the field, made a most 

 valuable contribution to our knowledge on the subject by 

 supplying a new, large and accurately observed mass of material 

 from the hospitals of that city — measurements of the six principal 

 long bones in 100 corpses whose length had been previously 

 ascertained. He also drew up a tabular rule for the reconstruc- 

 tion of stature, based on his new material, but being rather more 

 a surgeon than an anthropologist, he committed a curious error, 

 pointed out afterwards by Manouvrier, by ranging his facts in 

 the order of stature rather than of the length of bones. He 

 thus missed the cardinal fact of the greater proportion borne by 

 the trunk to the limbs in most short-legged people, and his table 

 is not very accurate except for statures approaching the medium. 



A distinguished anthropologist, however, Manouvrier, and 

 his accomplished pupil Eahon, took up and recast EoUet's 

 material ; and Manouvrier's tables, and Eahon's applications of 

 them, are now in pretty general use. Constant I'ef erence to these 

 tables, and some readiness in calculation, are required for their 



