A Few Thoughts Concerning Eugenics 121 



dition, or whether it simply intensifies a 

 preexisting tendency in the family.* The 

 largest percentages of children of 

 cousin marriages are found among the 

 deaf who have deaf relatives (8.8 per 

 cent), and among the blind who have 

 blind relatives (9.5 per cent) ; whereas in 

 sporadic cases the percentage falls to 

 little more than 3 per cent — that is, about 

 3 per cent of the deaf who have no deaf 

 relatives (3.3 per cent) and about 3 per 

 cent of the blind who have no blind rela- 

 tives (3.2 per cent) are the offspring of 

 cousin marriages. This may mean a 

 great deal or it may mean nothing at all. 

 Should we find, for example, that 3 

 per cent of the population of the United 

 States are the offspring of consangui- 

 neous unions there would be no proof that 

 the consanguinity of the parents had 

 anything to do with the production of the 

 defect in these cases. Statistics showing: 

 the proportion of the whole population 

 who are the offspring of consanguineous 

 marriages are much needed, and the 

 whole subject, I think, might very prop- 

 erly be investigated through the medium 

 of the United States Census Bureau. 



THE IMPORTANCE OP THE} INFERIOR 

 OVERRATED 



IS 



In any large aggregate of individuals 



the vast majority will be of the average 

 type of the race. Some few will be 

 markedly superior and some few inferior. 



An increase in the superior element 

 seems to be a more important factor in 

 producing improvement than a decrease 

 in the inferior element. Even were we to 

 go to the extreme length of cutting off 

 entirely the reproduction of the inferior, 

 this would not lead to an increase in the 

 numbers of the superior, but on the con- 

 trary to a decrease ; for some of the su- 

 perior are the offspring of inferior par- 

 ents, just as some of the inferior are the 

 offspring of superior. 



In the case of superior, average, and 

 inferior persons all three classes would 

 be reproduced in the offspring, but 

 in different proportions. There would 

 be a larger proportion of superior 

 children among the offspring of the 

 superior than of the average or in- 

 ferior, and a larger proportion of inferior 

 among the offspring of the inferior. The 

 cutting off of the inferior would simply 

 prevent deterioration by lessening the 

 production of inferior offspring. It 

 would not operate to cause an improve- 

 ment by an increase of the superior ele- 

 ment. 



I am much struck by the thought that 

 neither the quantity nor quality of the 



The Deaf of the United States in 1900 from Census Table XLVII, omitting "not stated" cases 

 relating to consanguinity of parents and Deaf Relatives. 





Numbers. 



Percentage. 



The deaf. 



Total. 



Parents 

 cousins. 



Parents 



not 

 cousins. 



Parents 

 cousins. 



Parents 



not 

 cousins. 



Total 



77,55o 



24,723 

 52,827 



3. 9ii 



2,171 

 1,740 



73,639 



22,552 

 51,087 



5-o 



8.8 

 3-3 



95 -° 



Deaf relatives {a or b) : 



Deaf relatives 



91.2 



No deaf relatives 



96.7 







The Blind of the United States in 1900 from Census Table XVIII, omitting "not stated" cases 



relating to consanguinity of parents and Blind Relatives. 





Numbers. 



Percentage. 



The blind. 



Total. 



Parents 

 cousins. 



Parents 



not 

 cousins. 



Parents 

 cousins. 



Parents 



not 

 cousins. 



Total 



55,307 



10,483 

 44,824 



2,449 



993 

 1,456 



52,858 



9,490 

 43,368 



4.4 



9-5 

 3-2 



95-6 



9°-5 

 96.8 



Blind relatives (a, b, or c) : 

 Blind relatives 



No blind relatives 





