186 
PROFESSOR KARL PEARSOK, MATHEMATICAL 
all comes R, as before. Thus while in the case of men the humerus, in the case of 
Avomen the tibia is the better bone of the two to predict stature from. A simple 
examination shows the emphasisino’ of the tibia coefficients in the case of woman. 
Tlip same holds for the radius coefficients, but in a still more marked degree. 
Both male and female show in the reg-ression formula for the four lono- bones a 
remarkable feature which they haA-e in common with the anthropomorphous apes, 
namely, the negative character of the partial regression coefficient. TJie longer the 
ratlius for the same value of femur, humerus, and tibia, the shorter ivill he the stature. 
In this point women are more akin to the anthropomorphous apes than man, for the 
negative radius coefficient in formula (k) is nearly four times as large. The tibia also 
has u coefficient almost double that of the male, and pointing in the same direction. 
(iii.) A comparison of Table Y. with Table YI. shoAvs us that man and Avoman are 
in all probability not only differentiated from a common stock directly with regard to 
stature, liut also directly AAuth regard to all other loDg bones. If we use female to 
construct male stature, or male to reconstruct female, we get surprisingly bad results. 
The fact that the formula {k) for female diverges in a direction from that of man, 
wdiich approximates to that of at least one species of anthropomorphous ape, is only 
of course a round-about quantitative manner of indicating, what is obvious on other 
grounds, that a substantial part of the differentiation of male and female took place 
in that part of the histoiy of man’s evolution which preceded his differentiation from 
the stock common to him and certain of the anthropomorphous apes. 
(S.) Before Ave modify our formulte in Tables Y. and YI. to suit the reconstruction 
of stature by measurements on prehistoric and other bones, we Avill put the numerical 
values for Mg, Mx, Mh, Mr into these formulm. This will serve a double purpose 
(i.), it will enable us to verify our formulae on Rollet’s material, and (ii.) it will 
place at the disposal of the criminal authorities the best formulae yet available for 
the reconstruction of the stature of an adult of whom one or more members haA'e 
been found under suspicious circumstances. 
Formulae for the Reconstruction of the Stature as Corpse, the Maximum Lengths of 
F, H, R, and of T without Spine being measured Avith the Cartilage on and in a 
Humid State.'’" 
Table YII.—Male. 
(a) S = 81-231 -f 1-880 F. 
(h) S = 70-714 + 2-894 H. 
(c) S = 78-807 + 2-376 T. 
{d) S = 86-465 -f 3-271 R. 
(e) S = 71-164 + 1-159 (F + T). 
(/) S = 71-329 -f 1-220 F -f 1-080 T. 
* TTe probable error in these and later tables are not reproduced; tbej maj be considered to be 
substantially* the same as in V. and A'l, 
