378 
Measurement of Internal Capacity of Skull 
the race by a formula. The presence or absence of one or two crania in one or 
other measurement entirely modifies the values. With our modern results for the 
continuous variation of skull characters within the race the manner in which 
Barnard Davis — and he appears to be followed by Dr Beddoe — picks the material 
upon which the average is to be struck is peculiarly annoying. A brachycephalic 
skull among a dolichocephalic series of three or four cannot be discarded in striking 
an average simply because it is brachycephalic ! Yet this is the sort of line 
Barnard Davis adopts, and in very few cases is it possible to determine which 
skulls he has retained and which he has rejected in striking his average for any 
given character. 
(7) From such material as this Dr Beddoe has largely drawn when testing his 
own formulae against Dr Lee's. He does not give us the information needful to 
determine whether he has struck fresh averages for himself or used Barnard Davis' 
averages. If he has used the latter, he seems unaware that he is frequently using 
means which do not correspond to the skulls used for the mean capacity, and that 
this is fatal to the validity of his inquiry in short series. In the next place 
Dr Beddoe has used no consistent or scientific measure of the goodness of the predic- 
tion. Generally he has taken the total range of error, which is of course absolutely 
fallacious. He ought to have used either the mean or mean square error, and to 
have fixed beforehand what was the standard capacity he proposed to reach. In 
the next place in using Dr Lee's formulae he has entirely disregarded her instructions 
as to the manner in which they were to be used. He has applied male formulae 
to find the capacity of female skulls, although Dr Lee has insisted on the sexual 
difference. He has used measurements which are not the measurements of her 
formulae to substitute in them. And lastly, and perhaps of most importance, is 
the fact that where we can test his arithmetic it is frequently quite incorrect. 
Surely the time has arrived when we must put aside all personal regard for a 
veteran and appeal in the interests of science for a totally different treatment and 
a totally different sense of responsibility when anthropometric problems are 
discussed. 
(8) It is not our purpose in this paper to follow Dr Beddoe page by page and 
show the fallacy of his conclusions, but it is necessary to illustrate the general 
character of his methods. The following passage will almost in itself be sufficient: 
" Les comparaisons suivantes ont trait a trois cranes de Naqada specialement 
cites par Miss Fawcett (p. 20 op. cit.*). 
Manouvrier Fawcett B^ P et L Thompson Thane 
1408 1371 1343 1332 1322 1294 1289 1270 
Ici mes precedes nous conduisent a des r^sultats plus corrects qu'aucun des 
autres. Je crois que ma methode est digne d'etre placee a cote des autres pour 
determiner la capacite cranienne. Je vais maintenant I'appliquer, avec les modi- 
fications necessaires, a la capacity des tetes vivantesf." 
* The citation is incorrect. It should be Biometrika, Vol. i. p. 420. t Loc. cit. p. 283. 
