Miscellanea 
4:21 
significant series and entirely unfavourable to Dr Salaman's view. It seems to show that the 
Jewish conception of " Jewishness " and that of the Gentile are something very different indeed, 
and that an independent classification of Dr Salaman's data by a Gentile observer would not lead 
to the same result. The fact is, — and in research of this kind it is an absolutely fatal objection 
to such loose and worthless categories, — the Jew catches the Gentile, and the Gentile the Jewish, 
features in what is probably a blend, and is guided in his judgment by the degree in which he 
perceives them. It is not until the nose, the eyes, pigmentation and other Gentile-Jewish 
differentia are reduced to measured features that any real solution of the problem can be 
reached. 
I think therefore, that Dr Salaman's categories are open to grave and even fatal objection. 
Let us turn now to the results of the investigation itself. Dr Salaman has himself admitted 
throughout his paper the existence of a large number of Jews who do not possess the character 
"Jewishness." We do not find that he has given us any facts as to the appearance of those 
Jews who married Gentiles and whose offspring form Table I. To the ordinary observer it 
would appear obvious that when a Gentile marries a Jew whose features do not possess 
"Jewishness" the resulting offspring would be Gentile in appearance. We require a fairly 
large sample of the Jewish population showing the distribution of its component elements 
before Dr Salaman's conclusions can be accepted. Now in Weissenberg's* experiment a 
proportion of his samples consisting either of 30 or 50 per cent, of his population, according to 
the personal equation of the observer did not appear distinguishably Jewish. It seems therefore 
reasonable to assume that the non-Jewish looking Jew forms a fairly large proportion of the 
population, larger, as I shall show, than it is possible for Dr Salaman to admit. Again, it must 
surely have struck him that the distribution of types in his Table I is not without signi6cance. 
In the first case, g Gentile x $ Jewish, the distribution is 88 Gentile, 15 Jewish and 
4 intermediate, i.e. in the sample, classing Jewish and intermediate as Jewish, 18 per cent, were 
Jewish in appearance. In the second case, <j? Gentile x $ Jewish, gave 240 Gentile, 11 Jewish, 
and 4 intermediate, i.e. with the same classification as before, 5 per cent, are Jewish. This is 
surely very anomalous, since on Mendelian theory there is no distinction between the two cases. 
Dr Salaman ascribes the appearance of the recessive Jewish types and the intermediates to 
(1) the Jewish bias in the observers and (2) a Jewish permeation of the English people in 
particular districts. In reference to (1) it is only necessary to say that the bias in favour of 
distinguishing the offspring as Jewish must he very great when the observer makes an incorrect 
distinction between two types which Dr Salaman tells us cannot be mistaken. His inconsistency 
here is destructive of his entire position. If this incorrectness be once admitted, it is sufficient 
to cast doubt upon the entire investigation. In (2) Dr Salaman, I take it, means that there is 
a Jewish ancestry even among the Gentile inhabitants. The Gentile inhabitant would therefore 
be an imperfect dominant on this theory ; but if there be this ancestry it is difficult to see why 
a Jewish looking Jew should always be dominant over a non- Jewish looking Jew, who would be 
often only a Jew in name and not a gametic Jew. The complete data should, I think, be 
tabulated before this exceedingly hypothetical explanation can be accepted as satisfactory. The 
mating of the hybrids with pure types seems to Dr Salaman entirely Mendelian in result, the 
approximate equality being the Mendelian expectation. I think the evidence I shall now 
adduce in criticism of this conclusion is sufficient to render it untenable. 
When the father is a Jew and the mother the hybrid and conversely, the distribution of 
types in the resulting offspring is 15 Gentile to 17 Jewish, the Mendelian expectation being, as 
we have said, equality. But Dr Salaman's analysis is very far from sufficient. What was the 
appearance of the hybrid parent 1 This, the really crucial point, is left a mystery. The 
following scheme indicates the possibilities which might have occurred. 
* Globus, Vol. xcvn. 6, 9, 10, 1910. 
54—2 
