M. A. Lewenz and K. Pearson 
397 
(a) Statistical enquiry is not a field for guesswork and elementary arithmetic ; 
there is a mathematical science of statistics which must be learnt, and papers 
dealing nunieiically with anthropometric and craniometric data which do not now 
apply this theory are simply outside the field of science. 
{b) Method in statistical reduction is not the only thing we demand however. 
In the light of modern scientific enquiry we demand that the craniologist shall 
distinguish between what holds for a local race of man, and what may be applied 
to mankind as a whole. We have elsewhere shown* by actual measurements 
that inter-racial and intra-racial correlations are not the same, and consequently 
the reconstruction formula for the individual within a given race is not the 
same as the formula for reconstructing the mean of a given race. 
Dr Beddoe draws no distinction here, just as he draws no distinction between 
the sexes, although Dr Lee gives every warning on this point. It is only when 
we find local race formulae closely in agreement among themselves that we can 
extend our results and form from them an inter-racial formula. Dr Beddoe makes 
no attempt to deduce intra-racial formulae from fairly homogeneous racial series 
by recognised statistical methods ; he does not then compare these among them- 
selves and see whether an inter-racial one can be deduced from them. He simply 
makes a guess, tries it on a most heterogeneous series, and if it does not fit 
makes another guess. He applies Dr Lee's results regardlessly to individuals and 
to race-means, he uses the same formula for male and female skulls, and where he 
has no data to offer, although by time and patience he could have collected some, 
he simply makes the roughest appreciation. This is not science ; it is the dilettantism 
which in the past has made anthropometry and craniometry impossible subjects 
for academic study. We believe that the time has come to change this, and uphill 
as the battle will be we shall not hesitate to criticise in the strongest manner 
papers like Dr Beddoe's, which sensibly lower the already low standard of ci anio- 
metric science. 
* Biomctrika, Vol. ii. pp. 347—56. 
