396 
Measurement of Internal CapaciUj of Sknll 
'superior' inion 315 mm. The cephalic index is 79"7 points, say 30 above 50. 
The answer is : 
C=1221 cm.\ 
To give Dr Beddoe more grace, suppose, which is extremely improbable, that 
the ' inferior ' inion is to be taken as the true inion. The sagittal arc is now 330 
instead of 315 and the answer is : 
C=1280 cm.'. 
But we will go even further. Dr Beddoe makes light of the hair when 
measuring his arcs and therefore he cannot consider of much importance the 
variation in the flesh. We will, however, endeavour to improve his position by 
allowing for the effect of shrinkage of the flesh on his circumferences, although 
we believe that this shrinkage is not comparable with the effect of different 
states of the hair. It can only be the roughest approximation. A circle of radius 
r + 5"5 mm. has for circumference lir (r + 5-5) mm. Hence, if 5'5 mm. shrink to 
3 mm. there would be a drop of 27r x 2-5 mm. in the circumference, say 16 mm. 
Hence, at the outside we cannot allow more than 16 mm. for change in the 
horizontal circumference due to shrinkage, and possibly 10 mm. in the auricular 
arc, and say 13 in the sagittal. This gives us as measurements in life : 
576, 353 and 328 for 'superior' inion, 
576, 353 and 343 for ' inferior ' inion. 
The first and more probable inion gives us now : 
C=1346, : 
and the second and improbable iuion : 
C=140S. 
Dr Beddoe's estimate would then be at least 70 cm.'', but most probably 150 to 
200 in defect, in the case of Jeremy Bentham ! This would not only place 
Bentham, undoubtedly as able as, if not abler than anybody on Dr Beddoe's list, 
at the very bottom of it, but a long way below the mediocre Englishmen with 
whom he is really identical. Thus, it seems to us, that in the only case whei-ein 
we have been able to test Dr Beddoe's formula and his hypothesis of marked 
correlation between skull capacity and ability both fail completely. This may be 
only the exception which proves the rule, but we must confess that it makes us 
entirely distrust not only his guesswork formula, but the deductions as to ability 
and skull capacity which he has based upon it. 
(15) Conclusion. In concluding this paper we want particularly to emphasize 
one or two points. We are not defending a particular formula ; we believe, owing 
to the results obtained, that a circumferential formula as good as a diametral 
formula can be reached. We are not fighting a particular group of workers ; in 
particular we believe that Dr Beddoe has done good service in widening the field 
of anthropometric interest in this country. What we want to emphasize are the 
following principles : 
