Sent G.D. Thane to K. Pearson, 14th Jan. 1895.
14 Jan 1895
Description:

‘My dear Pearson,

I have been much pressed, and I have really not had time to look into all your questions. I have all the things you mention, as I have the whole Archiv. f. Anthropologie, and nearly all the corresponding [illeg.], with the Versanam[?] [illeg.]. Also the whole of the Journal of the Anthropological Institute – I will bring the volumes you want from here by degrees. I havenot done the English skulls, but I can doubtless arrange for some men to make the measurements you want. I do not think the College of Surgeons have any such series of English skulls as you require. What French measurements there are we might expect to find in the Revue d’anthropologie & I have that from 1878 on, and its successor L. Anthropologie. I looked before, especially among Broca’s writings, for observations, but found only statements od means & averages, & extremes. You have found out about the Andamanese – there are two papers by Flower – most if not all of the skulls are in the College of Surgeons catalogue.

With regards to French statistics – there might be some in the Mémoires de la Societie d’anthopologie, but of that I have only two volumes.

I could, out of a large number of skulls, pick out those that were probably male, & those probably female, a smaller number would remain uncertain – all of the divisions into sexes have been made in this way; it is merely an estimation – it is not known that the skulls were obtained from males & females respectively. It would be necessary to have the series however for comparison.

As to primitive races, there are the Australians, you will remember, in the College of Surgeons. We might be able to add a few to those given in the Catalogue, and so make a considerable series.

I am much obliged for the copy of the Frankfürter Vertänfdigung, which will be very useful to me.

Finally, you must be careful that you do not compare together measurements which are not made in the same way – the measurements according to the Frankfürter Vertänfdigung are not comparible with ours or the French – the length, & therefore the C.l.[?] index, are not the same - this applies above all to capacities.

I suppose I shall see you in a day or two.

Yours very faithfully,

G.D. Thane.

P.S. I cannot find Wiedemann in Arch. f. Anthropologie viii 0 there is Wiedershein[?], “Ueber den Mädelhafner Schödelfund in Unterfranken.” Is that what you want?’

Sent G.D. Thane to K. Pearson, 20th Nov. 1896.
20 Nov 1896
Description:

‘My dear Pearson,

I shall not be here tomorrow forenoon, but that is quite exceptional. It is the only Saturday that I shall be away during the term.

I am sorry that I cannot tell what you mean by “the root of the cheek bone”: it looks from the sketch like the “panto[?]-ulular[?] junction,” i.e. where these two bones meet. If so I should say the index is a bad one-  the character you want to get at is exactly expressed by the frontal index – i.e. maximum frontal diameter: minimum frontal diameter – min. f.d. x 100/max. f.d.

The maximum frontal diameter is nearly the same as the listephanic[?], often identical. The minimal frontal diameter is between the nearest points of the temporal ridges, which arch upward on the bone about the [illeg.] which joins the molar[?].

As to the capacities I cannot give you any information. It is odd that Yule cannot tell you, for whatever has been done has been done. The only thing that I know about it is that he broke my measure, and informed me of it in a very airy fashion, and thereby but a stop to my doing anything of this sort during the vacation. I cannot get another measure of the right size. I have had two [illeg.] made, but they are no good. Whatever records there are are of course at your disposal – I will look when I come back on Monday.

I shall be very pleased to look to any points in your paper as to which you think I can be of service.

Yours very truly,

G.D. Thane.’