CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE THEORY OF EYOLUTION. 
191 
is either the condition in which we find the bones of a prehistoric or early race, or it 
is one to which they are soon reduced on being preserved in museum or laboratory. 
The first question which arises is the difference between the mean stature of the 
living and the mean stature of the corpse for both sexes. It is impossible to measure 
this difference satisfactorily on a sufSciently large number of individuals, and then 
take the mean difference. If we supj)Ose Rollet’s individuals to be an average 
sample of the French race, then we must place in Tables V. and VI. for Mg on the 
left the mean heights of French men and French women. 
Now there is a considerable amount of evidence t-o show that the mean Ireight of 
Frenchmen is 1G5 centims. almost exactly. The anthropometric service of M. Ber- 
TiLLON gives 164‘8 centims., and this is the stature furnished by the measurements 
for military recruiting."^ M. Manouvrier takes 165 centims. as the mean height, 
and as by selecting only twenty of E,ollet’s cases he gets a mean height of about 
167 centims. for the corpse, he concludes that 2 centims. must be deducted from the 
corpse length to get the living stature. In our case all we have to do is then to put 
Mg = 165 centiffis. At the same time, Bertillon’s numbers probably include many 
men over 50, and the recruiting service many men not yet fully grown ; hence it 
seems to me doubtful whether 2 centims. really represents the difference between 
living and dead stature. 165 centims. is probably a good mean height for the whole 
adult population,! and should accordingly be compared with Rollet’s whole adult 
population, which has a mean of 166'26 centims. I accordingly conclude that 
1’26 centims. is on the average a more reasonable deduction to make in order to pass 
from the dead to the living stature of the general population. In the course of my 
investigations, however, no use is made of this difference, but Mg given its observed 
living value. 
The value for women is far less easy to obtain, as a good series of French statistics 
entirely fails. The mean given in the footnote below is clearly only that of a special 
class. Manouvrier has found from 130 women, between 20 and 40 years of age, 
inscribed in Bertillon’s registers the mean height 154’5 centims., and Ration holds 
that this is the best result yet obtained.;}; But the mean height of Rollet’s material 
is 154’02 centims. (see my p. 180), and, as we have seen, this is not sensibly increased 
by taking only the women in the prime of life (see p. 179, above). If 154'5 centims. 
were the mean living stature of Rollet’s women, we should have to suppose a 
shrinkage of stature in women when the corpse is measured, whereas in the case of 
men the corpse length is greater than the living stature. Rahon, disregarding his 
own statement as to 154'5 centims. being the best value, follows Manouvrier in 
deducting 2 centims. from the stature as corpse to get the living stature. Manouvrier’s 
* ‘ Memoires de la Societe d’Anthropologie de Paris,’ vol. 4, p. 413, 1893. 
t For special classes the stature is considerably greater. See the values 166‘8 centims. for male and 
156T centims. for female given in the ‘Mem. Soc. d’Anthrop.,’ vol. 3, 1888. 
t Loc. cit., p. 413. 
