DATA FOR THE PROBLEM OF EVOLUTION IN MAN 
255 
Thus of the two exceptions to complete accordance we see that only Professor 
Weldon’s head in the case of formula (16) presents any serious disturbance of tlie 
relative order. 
On the whole, my methods will, I think, determine within reasonal)le limits the 
relative order of skull capacity from measurements on the living head. It is note¬ 
worthy that excej^t for the macrocephalic heads of Mr. Lynn Thomas and Bedford 
College student No. 1, forniulm (17) and (14) give sensibly identical results, or tliere 
is one linear formula Avhich gives I'esults sensibly identical with those of the product 
formula. This shows us that the surface represented Ijy (14) is sensibly })lane fi)r tlie 
range of skull measurements actually occurring. On consideration accordingly we 
may conclude that (14) (or its linear form (17)) gives the best results ; (15) gives a 
good control formula ; while of formulm directly obtained from the regression ecpiation 
for length, breadth, and height, the German apj)ears hest for the males, the mean of 
the German and Aino best for the females. For the remainder of my investigations 
on the capacity of the living head I shall accordingly use oidy the fornndce (14) and 
(16) or (18) for comparison. 
I propose first to investigate whether tliere is any olivlous relationship between 
skull capacity and current appreciation of intellectual aljility. 
My first series is contained in Talile XXV. We have here the estimated skull 
capacities of thirty-five living anatomists. Tlie list contains the names of many of 
great scientific rejiutation, and of otliers of less distinction. It will lie seen that 
about the middle of the list, if we divide at D. Hepeurn, the eighteenth man, certain 
transfers would occur from the up])er to the lower half, and vice versa, if we judged by 
formula (18) and not (14). But these transfers are of men having roundly about the 
same skull capacity, and I tliink that generally we may feel (juite satisfied with the 
accordance of tlie two series."^' Now the average capacity of the first eighteen 
anatomists is 1601 cub. centims., and of the last seventeen anatomists is 1468 cub. 
centims. There is thus a most substantial difference, t Yet he would be a liold man who 
would assert tliat there is a substantial average intellectual superiority in the first half 
In fact, a number of most capable men fall into the last nine, and J. Kollmann, one of 
the ablest living anthrojiologists, has absolutely the smallest skull capacity ! 
My second list contains the estimated skull capacity of twenty-five members of the 
teaching staff of University College, London. I give here the actual head measure¬ 
ments, as possibly of service in tlie future; those of the anatomists are published in 
the ‘Journal of Anatomy’ (see above). Here the first thirteen have a mean skull 
capacity of 1579 cubic centims. and the last twelve of 1436 cubic centims.—again a 
* tVe mast h 1 ways romember that (14) is (1 to be consirlererl a much better formula than (18), 
for the charge of its constants from race to race is far less. 
t The mean of the whole series as given Ity (14) is 1537, and by (18) is 15.34, a remarkable accordance 
in the average results of the two methods. 
