380 
Measurement of Internal Capacity of Skull 
Hence as he certainly would not have screened them behind a mean value, we 
are forced to the couclusion that he really did not grasjj their significance, or in 
other words that he is quite unfitted to deal with such statistical enquiries. But 
Dr Beddoe's agreement in the matter of the mean of the three skulls when his 
arithmetic is corrected is not only fallacious because it depends upon large 
individual errors of opposite sign but because he has used the wrong values of the 
auricular circumferences. To obtain his Q' he ought to have added at least 10 mm. 
to Miss Fawcett's Q. If this be done, his values for the three capacities are 1195, 
1613 and 1232 respectively, giving a mean of 1347 and a mean error of 49, — results 
markedly worse than P and L. We do not know whether Dr Beddoe would prefer 
to somewhat reduce his mean error at the expense of his mean, or to get a good 
mean with an excessive mean error. As he uses our Q for his own transverse 
circumference, we must suppose the latter to be the case and shall not attempt to 
modify this arc for the remainder of this paper when applying his B^. 
In concluding this section we may note the results obtained by using our new 
circumferential formulae. We have applied the English % formula* to the 
female skulls and the mean formula and the Naqada J' formula to the male 
skull. The following are the results : 
TABLE IV. 
Naqada Skull 
Capacity Measured 
Mean i and English ? 
Naqada <? , English ? 
1308? 
1217 
1203 (-14) 
1203 (-14) 
1497 
1542 (+45) 
1527 ( +30) 
1222 
1230 (+ 8) 
1230 (+ 8) 
Mean 
1312 
1325 ( + 13) 
1320 (+ 8) 
Mean Error 
22 
17 
Thus the method of correlation, whether we use diameters or circumferences, 
gives for these three skulls immeasurably better results than Dr Beddoe's B-^; 
yet it is as a corollary to his results for these three crania that he writes : 
" Je crois que ma methode est digne d'etre placee a cote des autres pour 
determiner la capacity cranienne." 
(9) We have already given our reasons for dissenting from Dr Beddoe's 
methods of applying his own and the University College workers' formulae to his 
material, and also our objections to the use of Barnard Davis' material at all-f". 
Still this material, allowing for the rough approximations which have to be made 
* The only series for which the female data has so far been reduced. 
t It is greatly to be desired that a complete system of modern measurements should be taken and 
published, not only on the Barnard Davis collection, but on the remainder of the splendid material in 
the possession of the Royal College of Surgeons. 
