360 
PKOFESSOR K. PEARSON AND OTHERS ON 
this seems to me very instructive when we consider the statements made by some 
writers who theorise about variation rathei’ than actually measure it : The undifferen¬ 
tiated like organs gyut forth hy the individual have in round numbers 80 to 90 per 
cent, of the variation oj such organs in the race. Does not this completely refute the 
views frequently expressed that variation is the result of sexual reproduction, and that 
it is quite insignificant in the case of budding 1 Sexual reproduction may produce a 
type which is not that of either parent, but this does not d fortiori alter the vari¬ 
ability of the race with regard to any organ. With continuous variation such type 
would have previously existed as far as any special organ or character is concerned, 
and its repetition contributes nothing to the racial variability. We have to meet the 
fact that the individual produces undifferentiated like organs with a remarkable 
degree of variety, and if the investigations of the present memoir be valid the 
practical result of the liomotyposis factor having a value of ’4 to ‘5 would denote that 
the individual variability is 91’65 to 86'60 per cent, of the racial. 
(25.) Lastly, we may consider a third point of very great interest, which is 
involved in Table XXXIV. Here we have the coefficients of variation given for some 
twenty-two series. Now tliis coefficient seems to me the only satisfactory comparative 
measure we can find at present of variability. A variation of two in the petals of 
a buttercup is far more significant than one of two in the florets of an ox-eyed daisy; 
tlie measures of the absolute variations as given by the standard deviations seem to 
me of no use when we are comparing different characters in different species. In 
default of the suggestion of any better standard, all we can do is to get rid of absolute 
size or number by using the percentage variation of the character as indicated in the 
coefficients of variation. Now our table gives a fairly continuous series from 7'80 up 
to 41’96.^ The mean value of 19 is in very good accord with the results I have 
obtained for variation in a much wider series for the vegetable kingdom. Now I 
think it will be admitted : 
(«.) that this variation is based on results for a wide number of species; 
{b.) that this variation covers a consideralde variety of characters ; 
(c.) tliat it is rougldy continuous in value between 8 and 40. 
But if we examine the fourth column in this table, which gives the place of the 
correspondinix homotypic correlation, we find absolutely no relationship between the 
intensity of the liomotyposis and of the variability. The homotypic order will not 
compare in any way with the variation order. The mean variability of the first eleven 
series is 22‘95, and of the last eleven series 14'28, very sensible deviations from the 
mean 18’62 of tlie whole twenty-two series. But the mean homotypic correlation of 
the first eleven series is '4559, and of the last eleven series '4581, neither of which 
* If we excluded the hai’tstoiigue as largely influenced liy environment, we should find broom heading 
the list, one of my most satisfactory series, both as to similarit}^ of individual environment and as to 
smoothness of frequency. We shoidd still conclude that variation might reach to nearly 10. 
