CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. 
221 
giants, and too large in the case of dwarfs. This defect of the theory is the more 
serious in that while no prehistoric bones at present discovered give ns indications of 
a race with giant proportions, there are such bones vrhicb indicate the existence of 
dwarf races in neolithic Europe. The reconstruction of individual giants from the 
skeletons preserved is also of some interest, although, from the standpoint of evolution, 
it, so far, has nothing like the importance of the reconstruction of the dwarf races. 
If our formulm do not apply to giants and dwarfs, we are forced to one or other of 
the following conclusions :— 
(«.) Dwarf and giant races must have been differentiated from normal races by a 
selection which has partially or totally changed the regression formulse. 
(h.) The regression forinulge are not really linear ; they are only apparently linear, 
because, in dealing with the normal range of stature, we have only to consider a small 
portion of the regression curve which is sensibly straight. 
Both these conclusions may of course be partially true. 
In order to consider the validity of one or both of these hypotheses, it might seem 
that all we have to do is to investigate the relation between the long bones and 
stature in the case of a sufficient number of giants and dwarfs. But alas ! the 
total material is small, and the quality of it is exceptionally bad. The majority 
of giants and dwarfs probably prefer a quiet life and a normal burial, so that their 
bones do not reach the anatomical museum.'" Of the dwarfs and giants whose 
skeletons are to be found in museums, the majority earned their livelihood by 
exhibition, and accordingly their living stature was a character likely to be under- 
or over-estimated for the pur230ses of advertisement. If we put aside all records of 
the living stature, we are thrown ba,ck on the measurement of the length as corpse, 
or on estimates formed by anatomists of the stature from the articulated skeleton. 
Unfortunately, authorities differ very widely as to (a) the difference between the 
skeleton (after mounting) and the corpse length— Orfila makes a difference of 
7'5 centims., Briant and Chaude of 8 centiins., and Torinard of 3‘5 centims.— 
and (h) on the difference between the living stature and the coiq^se length (see p. 191). 
Even if Topinard’s estimate, based upon 23 no'rmal subjects measured as corpse 
and skeleton, be correct, it could hardly be safely extended to the cases of giants 
and dwarfs. Professor Cunningham, in attemjiting to reconstruct the stature of 
the Irish Giant, Magrath, goes so far as to discard all records of living stature, and 
all attempts to reconstruct stature from the articulated skeleton, and would estimate 
only from the length of the femur.t But this method seems to me fatal, at any rate 
for our present purpose, the very object of wdiich is to find the I’elation between 
stature and femur (or any other long bone) in the case of giants. It cannot too 
* In the investigation fox- cousci'ipts in Bavaria, in 1875, 43 dwarfs were found, aud among’ the 
35 measured we have a range of 115 centims. to 139 centims. There were also four giants, or men 
with statures of 190 centims. and over. 
t ‘ Roj'al Iri.sh Academy Transactions,’ vol. 29, 1891, pp. 553-612. 
