M. A. Lewenz and M. A. Whiteley 355 
TABLE XIII. 
Bones of the Thumb. Left Hand. 
45 Cases 
1 
•825 + -032 
•528 + •OVS 
•825 ^032 
1 
•538 + ^072 
•528 + ^073 
•538 ± ^072 
1 
Here the values are less intense than is the rule in the case of the lateral 
relationship. Further there is no significant difference between right and left- 
hand thumbs. Lastly, each bone is more nearly correlated with its immediate 
neighbour, than with the one from which that neighbour separates it. 
Let us see how far these results hold for the other digits. 
TABLE XIV. 
Bones of the Index Finger. Rig Jit Hand. 
46 Cases 
Rm., 
Rs.. 
Rd., 
Rni^ 
Rp, 
Rs, 
Rd, 
1 
•837 + •0.30 
•798 ± -036 
•534 ±^074 
•837 + •OSO 
1 
•8.34+^0.30 
•489 + ^076 
•798 + ^036 
•834 ± ^030 
1 
•516 ■+•073 
•534+ •O?! 
•489 + ^076 
•516 + ^073 
1 
TABLE XV. 
Bones of the Index Finger. Left Hand. 
46 Cases 
Lnu 
Lpl 
Ls., 
z4 
1 
•797 ±-036 
•691 + -052 
•518 + ^073 
•797 + ^036 
1 
•862 + ^026 
•504 + ^075 
•691 + ^052 
•862+^026 
1 
•481 + ^077 
•518 + ^073 
•504+^075 
•481 + ^07 7 
1 
Here the values are again less intense than for the lateral relationship. There 
is possibly slightly more correlation in the right than in the left hand. Each bone 
is more highly correlated with a second than with a bone from which the second 
separates it ; this rule, however, is broken thi"ough in the case of the distal 
phalanx, which in both index fingers is most closely correlated with the bone 
furthest removed, i.e. the metacarpal bone. 
37—2 
