190 On Criminal Anthropometry 
Applying these formulae we find : 
TABLE 13. 
Cephalic Index. 1000 Cambridge Men and 3000 GHminals. 
S. D. 
Mean 
Head Index 
Skull Index 
Head Index 
Skull Index 
1000 Cambridge Men ... 
3000 Criminals 
2-9478 
2-7900 
2-9021 
2-7435 
79-562 
78-538 
78-330 
77-227 
The great difference in cephalic index between the two classes is to be noted, 
and it is interesting to observe that there is a large difference in the skull capacity 
as measured by Dr Lee's formula (Phil. Trans. Vol. 196, A., p. 235), 
(7 = 6-752 Z + 11-421 5- 1434 06, 
where C = capacity in cubic centims, L and B the length and breadth of skull in 
millims. 
For Criminals L = 191-663 - 11 = 180 663 
B = 150-442 - 11 = 139-442. 
For Cambridge Men L = 193-509 - 11 = 182 509 
5= 153-959 - 11 = 142-959. 
Calculating C by the formula, we find it is 
For Criminals 1378-34 
For Cambridge Men 1430-98 
but in the absence of the measurement of the height of the skull, we do not lay 
much stress on these determinations. 
Summing up the results of this part of the inquiry, I conclude that there is a 
substantial difference in stature, and in size and shape of head between the two 
classes ; I do not assert that the source of the criminality is to be found in this 
difference, but only that criminals are drawn from a different section of the 
connnuiiity. As bearing on this point it is worth noting that the mean height in 
Galton's middle-class measurements at the International Exhibition of 1884, viz. 
67"'9, approaches our criminal mean more closely than does the Cambridge mean. 
I should add that I believe the head measurements in the prisons and at 
Cambridge are made practically in the same way. 
