346 



Miss A. Lee and Prof. Karl Pearson. 



except in the few cases where its length was not recorded. In these 

 cases in order not to diminish the already small series, the left 

 member was taken. Of the two measurements of the femur given 

 by Rollet the longer was taken. 



The measurements of the Aino bones were taken from a work by 

 Koganei in the i Mittheilungen aus der Medicinischen Facultat der 

 K. Japanischen Universitat,' Bd. 2 — Tables, Tokio, 1894 ; and the 

 same rule observed. The Japanese returns, while more extended 

 in the variety of bones measured than the French, yet contain 

 fewer individuals, and in many respects do not seem to us so 

 reliable as the latter.* In both cases the maximum length of 

 femur, humerus, radius, ulna, fibula, and clavicle (F b H, ~R U U, Fib., 

 and CI.) were measured. For the Aino we have in addition to the 

 lengths (R 2 and T 2 ) of the radius and tibia from centre to centre, 

 the length (F 2 ) of head and neck of femur, and the scapular index 

 (Sc.) or ratio of breadth to length of scapula. The Aino measure- 

 ments give the maximum length of the tibia (T{) as well as the 

 length from centre to centre. The French measurements give the 

 length of the tibia, excluding the spine and including the malleolus 

 (T 3 ). In order that our results might be of service to Mr. E. Warren, 

 who is dealing at length with the Libyan long bones, the radius 

 correlations for the Aino were calculated for R 2 and not for R x , as 

 they are in the case of the French. The results for French and 

 Aino are not strictly comparable in this case. The same holds for 

 the measurement of the tibia. Probably Rollet's T 3 measurement 

 corresponds more closely to Koganei's measurement No. 13 (T x ) 

 than to his No. 14 (T 2 ). Both T 1 and T 3 are greater, T 2 is less than 

 the fibula in length. 



We have dealt with the Aino T 2 instead of T 1} however, for the 

 purpose of comparison with the Libyans. 



The following tables give the chief results : — 



* One female humerus (No. 42) was noticed to be very discordant,. As it would 

 be excluded as a "discordant observation" by Chauvenet's criterion it was re- 

 jected; it was afterwards found to be described in the text as deformed. The male 

 humerus (No. 31) should be 279 and not 379 cm. long. The female ulna, No. 4, 

 (270 cm.) has been rejected. It is out of all proportion to the corresponding 

 humerus, as judged by the whole range of humerus ulna measurements we have 

 •come across. Yet notwithstanding its disproportionately large size, Koganei 

 describes it (p. 127) as much bent. The male fibula, No. 19, is excessive as com- 

 pared with either femur or tibia. There did not, however, seem sufficient warrant 

 for rejecting it. Its being a misprint or mismeasurement would account for the 

 low values obtained for the $ Aino correlation of fibula with femur and tibia. 

 Without it the fibula-tibia correlation = 0'9492. 



