CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. 
227 
G, H, I, J, K and N are all taken from the very valuable memoir by K. Lancier ; 
‘‘Wacbstum des menschlichen Skeletes mit Bezug auf den Eiesen,” ‘ Denkscbriften 
der k. Akademie der Wissenscbaften, Math. Natiirwiss. Classe,’ vol. 31, Wien, 1872, 
pp. 1-105. F, H and R are here distinctly stated to be the maximum lengths, and 
T appears to be measured without spine.The heights are apparently those of the 
articulated skeletons. 
L. This is the only giant I have ventured to retain out of Sir George Humphry’s 
list in “The Human Skeleton,” Cambridge, 1858, p. 107, for he indicates that he 
measured it himself (p. 105). I have not been able to identify his “Paissian Giant” at 
Bonn. His Berlin giants differ considerably from those in the Berlin Catalogue, while 
his estimates of O’Byrne and of the Irish giant seem hopelessly too large. As he gives 
the Musee Orfila giant 17 centims. less stature than Topinard {Joe. cit., p. 430), I 
think his estimate on this occasion more probable. M and O are taken from the 
Anthropological Catalogues of the Museums at Bonn and Munich. I am not clear as 
to wdiat is meant by Korpcrlcinge in these cases, d'he statures are curiously small as 
compared with the long bones, if Korperlange is to be thus interpreted, Possiltly it 
is the length of the mounted skeleton witliout disks. 
S, T and U. The details of these dwarfs I have taken from Paltauf’s work : 
‘ Ueber den Zwercjwuchs in anatomischer und g'erichtsarztlicher Beziehuno’ ’ 
Wien, ]891.t This book compares unfavourably with the careful memoir of 
Langer. The measurements of the long bones of Mikolajik are given several 
times over, on each occasion with different values ; the exact nature of the measure¬ 
ments made is not stated, and results such as those on the author’s p. 92, depending 
on the most elementary arithmetic, are erroneously given. I have taken the values 
which seem to give the most self-consistent results, but it is impossible to feel sure of 
their absolute accuracy. Schaaffpiausen’s account of his dwarf appears in the 
‘ Berichte der Niederrhein. Gesellschaft fiir Naturkunde in Bonn,’ vols. 25 and 39, 
and His’s account of his dwarf in ‘Virchow’s Archiv,’ vol. 22, p. 104. 
All the giants and dwarfs in the above list were adults; the ages of the four 
dwarfs at death were S, 49 years; T, G1 years ; U, 58 years ; and V, 23 years. 
The following table gives the reconstructed statures of these giants and dwarfs ns 
obtained from my diagram and from Manouvrier’s “Coefficients rnoyens ultimes.” I 
have not thought it necessary to publish in the latter case the estimate from each 
individual bone, but have simply printed the mean of the four results and the 
differences from the supposed actual stature. It will be noticed that Manouvrier’s 
estimate is in every case too small. Of my differences, 2 are zero, 6 are positive, 
and 11 negative, but the negative differences are sensibly larger than the positive, so 
that my curves have rather under than over corrected for giant and dwarf stature. 
* “ Alls der Mitte der lateralen Condylusflaclie in die Incisura fibularis.” 
t I Lave verified the dimensions given for His’s dwarf from ‘ Virchow’s Archiv fiir Pathologie a, 
Anatomie,’ vol. 22, 1861, p. 104, et seq. 
2 G 2 
