1884.] 
Analyses of Books . 483 
the first three of which shall be produced specimens as much too 
effeminate as the preceding ones were too masculine ? Is it 
possible that Nature is thus constrained to inflidt misery upon so 
large a poition of the human family ?” Alas ! if the avoidance 
of misery were a ruling principle in Nature, should we see sickly 
01 debilitated animals still capable of reproduction, and thus 
perpetuating disease and suffering ? We quote the above 
passage, however, as an instance of the author’s tendency to 
argue from moral considerations when discussing physical laws. 
Another theory, the so-called “Alternate,” is that Nature 
makes all human ova either male or female, and supplies the 
foimer one month and the latter the next. This supposition is 
again refuted by the case of twins of different sexes. 
The theory commonly ascribed to Hippocrates is that the 
parent physically the more vigorous at the time of conception 
gives his or her sex to the offspring. As Cuvier words it : 
“To obtain an excess of female offspring the father should be 
young and ill-fed, and the mother should be of mature years and 
highly fed.” Certain experiments performed with flocks of sheep 
seemed to support this hypothesis. But it was found that 
eighteen consumptive mothers (who by-the-bye should not have 
been married at all) gave birth to eighty-seven children. Upon 
the basis of vigour most of these should certainly be boys. But 
no; seventy-four were girls and only thirteen boys — one seventh. 
Before proceeding to expound his own theory Mr. Starkweather 
discusses the comparative rank of the sexes. To his conclusion 
that both are essentially equal, though not identical, we cannot 
objedt. But what must we think when, speaking of those who 
maintain female .superiority, he writes, without comment, 
“ The general tenour of their arguments is that woman is a later 
creation (!) and therefore of a higher order”? Another chapter, 
on “ Heredity and Sterility,” contains, along with much that is 
suggestive and worth a careful consideration, the following pas- 
sage, strangely out of place in a scientific treatise: — “ It might 
make mothers blush if they knew how many a tale is written so 
plainly on the faces of their children that the whole world may 
read what they had fondly hoped would ever remain a profound 
secret. Where you find a family of children strongly resembling 
their father, it is unmistakable evidence that he was almost con- 
stantly in the mother’s mind during the period of gestation.” 
These preliminary matters being disposed of, we come to the 
author’s law, to wit : — “ That sex is determined by what I shall 
designate as the superior parent; also that the superior parent 
produces the opposite sex.” Of course we naturally ask in what 
sense is the term “ superior” here used, and how is superiority 
to be recognised ? The answer is by no means so clear to the 
reader as it doubtless may seem to Mr. Starkweather himself. 
He admits that there are numerous fadtors to be taken into 
account, such as temperament, activity, energy, will, intellect, 
