COJiTTfllBUTIONS TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. 
233 
because Sir W. H. Flower was the first* to use a ratio of stature and long bone for 
the mean population for the reconstruction of stature, but because he has emphasised 
the fact that, for dwarf races, it does appear to give fairly good results. 
(24.) Bushmen. 
My material is very sparse. Sir George Humphry, in his work on “ The Human 
Skeleton,” gives (p. 106) the mean long-bone lengths for three presumably male 
Bushmen. 
F = 38T0, H — 27-43, T = 32-77, 21*08. 
I find 
Estimated Stature of Bushmen. 
Bone. 
Pi. 
Pii. 
M. 
FI. 
F 
152-9 
150 0 
147-4 
141-4 
H 
150-0 
141-0 
143-1 
1.38-8 
T 
156 5 
156-5 
156-2 
148-8 
R 
154-9 
1.53-0 
149-3 
144-0 
F -f T 
1.52-4 
F & T 
152-3 
H + R 
150-8 
H & R 
149-8 
F & H 
1.50-3 
• • 
• • 
F, T, H & R 
150-6 
Means 
152-05 
149-9 
149-0 
143-25 
Now it is clear that neither the chart (Pn), nor Manouvrier’s “ Coefficients 
moyens ultimes” (M), make in this case much alteration on the estimate given by 
my normal regression formula (h) for all four long bones. But the value given by 
FI is 6 centims. less. Sir George Humphry gives the average stature of these three 
Bushmen as 137*1 centims. He does not, however, state where his data are taken from. 
Curiously enough, his value for stature coincides exactly with the value Toptnard says 
Barrow has assigned to the Bushmen. I cannot think that this was the stature in 
life of the individuals whose bones are averaged by Humphry. Fritsch gives the 
average stature of six Bushmen he measured as 144 centims.,! and I should hesitate 
to place the mean stature of the above three below 145 centims. to 150 centims. At 
* It lias been used bj Orpila, Sii' George Humphry, and others, and, as we have seen, gives quite 
incorrect results for races from 155 to 175 centims. in stature, 
t See Topinard, ‘ Anthi’opologie generale,’ p. 461. 
2 H 
VOL. CXCII.—A. 
