CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. 
195 
Mp. Mh. Mt. M^. 
7*1 millims. 4’1 millims. 4’7 millims. 2’2 millims., respectively. 
Making these subtractions (which are sensibly ditFerent from Manouvrier’s 
allowance of 2 millims, for each bone), we are in a position to find the reconstruction 
formulae connecting lining statnre with dry bone entirely free of animal matter. We 
have for the French population, if Ms» denotes living mean stature, and Mp-/, Mh', 
Mx"j the mean lengths of the corresponding dry bones in centimetres : 
Table XII. 
Ms". 
Mh». 
Mx". 
Mr.. 
Male .... 
16.50 
44'52 
32-60 
36-.34 
24-17 
Female .... 
152'3 
40-86 
29-36 
32-97 
21-27 
If we want the mean oblique length of the femur Mp-, we must follow the rule 
given on p. 184, and we find Mp- = 44"20 for male and = 40'53 for female. M. Rahon 
has measured the lengths of a large collection of long bones in the Faculty of 
Medicine of Paris,and he finds :—■ 
Femur, oblique length, 62 males, mean 44T (44‘2). 
,, ,, ,, 38 females, ,, 39‘6 (40'5). 
Humerus, maximum length, 44 males, ,, 32’3 (32'6). 
,, ,, :, 39 females, ,, 29 2 (29’I). 
My results are placed in brackets, and it is clear that for these bones the 
allowances for cartilage and animal matter have been very satisfactory ; there has 
certainly been no over-correction, although in the case of the femur our allowance is 
more than thrice, and in that of the humerus more than twice M. Manouvrier’s. 
M. PtAHON does not give the measurement of the radius, but he does of the tibia, 
and in this case there is undoubtedly some source of error in his result, or in the 
collection. He gives :—T for 53 males, mean = 37‘7 ; for 26 female = 35'7. Now 
Pollet’s material for 50 of either sex gives, male mean = 36'8, and female = 33'4, 
without allowance for the cartilage or presence of animal matter. Allowing for these, 
Rahon’s measurements are, male, 1'4 centims., and female, 2'7 centims. too large. 
These are errors much beyond those of the determinations, which have probable 
errors of about T7 to *18 centim. Rahon, since he is using' Manouvrier’s method 
must be supposed to be measuring the tibia in the same manner as FIollet, i.e., with 
the malleolus and without the spine. But even supposing he had included the spine, 
* Loc. cit ., p. 413. 
2 c 2 
