Raymond Pearl 47 
Sex Ratios. Means. Various Physical Characters. 
Org&n or OhcirSiCtcr 
— 
ijociy wci^iitj _t><xbiGs ... ... 

„ Children 
1'038 
Weight or Vitcal Urgaiis 
1 "130 
Stature, Children ... 
1 .rw 1^ 
AClUlt.S 
1 
i U/ / 
Height, Sitting ... 
1-032 
Long jBones 
1-086 
Chest Girth ... ... 
1-024 
Squeeze of Hands 
1-207 
Keenness of Sight and Touch . . . 
1-061 
Skull Capacity 
1-124 
„ Circumference 
1-042 
Cephahc Index 
•997 
Head Index 
-995 
Profile Angle 
■994 
Alveolar Angle 
■994 
Nose and Palate ... 
1-013 
We may turn next to the question of the relative variability of the sexes in 
respect to brain-weight. Pearson* found that in the case of the English, the 
female showed "slightly more" variability than males; the French data which he 
worked over gave sensibly equal variabilities for the sexes, as did also Bischoff's 
Bavarian data. In the following table are shown the differences between the male 
and female coefficients uf variation with the probable errors of the differences. 
The values tabulated are the male minus the female constant in each case. 
Relative Variability of tlie Sexes. Male — Female. 
Eace 
Coeftlcieut of Variation 
"Total " series 
"Young " series 
Bohemians 
Hessians 
Bavarians 
Swedes 
•427 + -320 
- ^029 + ^293 
- •222+^254 
- ^451 + •SIO 
•740 ± '375 
- -036 ± -366 
-546 + -305 
- -600+ -422 
In three cases out of the eight the male has a larger coefficient of variation, 
but in no instance can the differences between male and female coefficients be 
considered significant when compared with the probable errors. In only one case 
(Bohemian " young " series) does the difference approach closely to a value even 
twice as great as its probable error. Therefore wo must conclude that, so far as 
the series here considered are concerned, there is no significant dififez'ence between 
* Chances of Death, Vol. i. pp. 321, 322. 
