H.H. Risley to K. Pearson, 11th July 1899.- External URL
- Correspondence Details
-
Sent From (Definite): Herbert Hope RisleySent To (Definite): Karl PearsonDate: 11 Jul 1899
- Current Holder(s)
-
Holder (Definite): University College London: Special Collections
- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
Sent fromHerbert Hope Risley
11 Jul 1899
Description:
‘My dear Sir,
I enclose a card of introduction from Dr Garson & venture to ask your advice on one or two points connected with the next Census of India. I am going out in October as Census Commissioner for India and I am anxious to acquaint myself with the most modern methods of dealing with statistics, as far as that is possible for a person with no mathematical knowledge. I would ask you therefore
(1) what books in English French German or Italian are the best authorities on the subject of statistical methods including graphic presentations of facts?
(2) Do you advise that the opportunity of the Census should be taken to compile a very large series of cephalic measurements which have been rendered useless for police purposes by the introduction of finger-prints? At present the data collected by me some years ago hold the field & are better than the police statistics in that they deal with the very important nasal & nao-molar[?] indices which seem to show a closer correspondence with racial characters than the cephalic index/ Still in view of the fact that the police measurements extend to about 200,000 subjects & cover pretty well the whole of India (including Bombay which my figures did not touch) it appears to me that it would be a pity not to compile them. I should mention however that they have one serious defect – the cephalic length has been taken, not from the glabella as Topinard & Collignon & all other modern authorities recommend, but from the root of the nose. I am under the impression that Virchow at one time recommended this measurement but I have no books here to refer to. The point however leads up to my third question –
(3) Assuming that the defect I have mentioned does not condemn the figures offhand would it be possible to convert them, by adding some constant figure, into terms of statistics taken from the glabella? I gathered from Dr Garson that your researches into the question of correlation had been so elaborate that you might be in a position to say authoritatively what the correction ought to be.
Pray excuse me for troubling you with what may appear to you rather rudimentary questions. I am very anxious to make the most use possible of the great map of statistical material which now exists in India & I want to learn what are the best methods to follow.
Yours truly
H.H. Risley.’
-
Sent toKarl Pearson
11 Jul 1899
Description:
‘My dear Sir,
I enclose a card of introduction from Dr Garson & venture to ask your advice on one or two points connected with the next Census of India. I am going out in October as Census Commissioner for India and I am anxious to acquaint myself with the most modern methods of dealing with statistics, as far as that is possible for a person with no mathematical knowledge. I would ask you therefore
(1) what books in English French German or Italian are the best authorities on the subject of statistical methods including graphic presentations of facts?
(2) Do you advise that the opportunity of the Census should be taken to compile a very large series of cephalic measurements which have been rendered useless for police purposes by the introduction of finger-prints? At present the data collected by me some years ago hold the field & are better than the police statistics in that they deal with the very important nasal & nao-molar[?] indices which seem to show a closer correspondence with racial characters than the cephalic index/ Still in view of the fact that the police measurements extend to about 200,000 subjects & cover pretty well the whole of India (including Bombay which my figures did not touch) it appears to me that it would be a pity not to compile them. I should mention however that they have one serious defect – the cephalic length has been taken, not from the glabella as Topinard & Collignon & all other modern authorities recommend, but from the root of the nose. I am under the impression that Virchow at one time recommended this measurement but I have no books here to refer to. The point however leads up to my third question –
(3) Assuming that the defect I have mentioned does not condemn the figures offhand would it be possible to convert them, by adding some constant figure, into terms of statistics taken from the glabella? I gathered from Dr Garson that your researches into the question of correlation had been so elaborate that you might be in a position to say authoritatively what the correction ought to be.
Pray excuse me for troubling you with what may appear to you rather rudimentary questions. I am very anxious to make the most use possible of the great map of statistical material which now exists in India & I want to learn what are the best methods to follow.
Yours truly
H.H. Risley.’
-
