528 FRETS, THE INDEX CEPHALICUS. 
In accordance with MACDONELL (p. 523) we find that for the 
Scottish material of TOCHER there is no sensible correlation between 
capacity and index. 
Table 25. Index and L+ B + H. 2459 males (TOCHER), 
| 




| D 
| | 





100B | | | 
L+B+H|N. | Index er IL+B+H| Nis} Ind Pe 
| | | | | | 
410 1 79 490 313 | 77.64 | 2.87 
425 1 85.5 495 260 | 77.22! 2.60 
430 2 75 500 160 | 77.35 | 3.31 
435 3 74.5 505 100 | 77.9 | 2.75 
440 10 80 510 43 | 77.54 | 2.54 
445 7 77.36 515 10 | 76.15 | 
. 450 20 76.43 3 520 14 | 78.25 
455 464 77.93 3.71 525 5 | 79.5 
460 81 77.58 2.58 530 3 | 73.6 
465 139 77.75 2.62 535 va 1805 
470 230 77.63 2.86 |... 2580 ba 74 
475 277 77.42 2.68 585 LAS 
480 357 77.82 2.79 mean index | 77.58 
485 376 77.68 2.90 mean « 2.83 



From this it also appears that the fact that woman has a lower 
mean index than man, may not be attributed to the female’s head 
being smaller than that of the male (p. 519 and p. 522). 
Moreover we have still made another calculation. If there are two 
ways in which compensational growth is efficient for each of the 
dimensions of head, so, for instance, with an increasing breadth 
by a decrease of length, and by a decrease of height, it is possible 
that for large heads one way, and for small heads the other way 
is more efficient. 
In the first case the correlation of L and B will be smaller 
then, than in the second. 
Therefore we classified into 3 groups that part of the material 
of TOCHER for which we have calculated L + B + H, viz of small, 
middle-sized, and large heads and for these different headcapacity- 
classes we have calculated the correlation of L and B. The results 
are shown in tab. 26. si 
Just as in tab. 25 we see that. the mean index of the different. 
