K. Pearson to W.M.F. Petrie, [Aug.?] [1895].- External URL
- Correspondence Details
-
Sent From (Definite): Karl PearsonSent To (Definite): Sir William Matthew Flinders PetrieDate: Aug 1895
- Current Holder(s)
-
Holder (Definite): Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, UCL.
- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
Sent fromKarl Pearson
Aug 1895
Description:
‘Dear Professor Petrie,
Many thanks for your reference to Garson on Medum skulls, which I shall look up. Flower’s Andamanese measurements I know, but as there are only 12 ♂ crania & 12 ♀ crania, the constants can hardly be satisfactorily determined, at least for my purposes. They are undoubtedly roundheaded, but this is emphasised by Flower’s measurements of length. Can you refer me to any good collection of American Indian skulls? I should be very thankful for a reference.
Next as to Mook. I think his collection is distinctly homogeneous whatever it may be. You use the smallness of the variability in the case of the new race as an argument for homogeneousness (an argument which I think must be very cautiously applied), but Mook’s Egyptians have remarkably small variability also, if not as small as your new race. Then so far as I have gone yet variability in breadth is very sensibly greater than variability in length in all races I have worked out numbers for. Thus German Bavarian peasants, modern Parisians, Libyans(?) and Mook’s Egyptians have a mean length not so very different, but widely different breadths. It seems to me so far then (since breadth also has a high coefficient of variation) that roundheads have been derived from longheads by a selection of breadth rather than length.
I should be especially glad to see data to show that height & length increase more readily than width as you suggest.
Of course it is quite possible for longheads to have come from round by a selection of small breadths. The lengths being the same small breadth might be an advantage at birth, were not indeed longheadedness on this occasion provided by other means!
Yours very truly,
Karl Pearson.’
-
Sent toSir William Matthew Flinders Petrie
Aug 1895
Description:
‘Dear Professor Petrie,
Many thanks for your reference to Garson on Medum skulls, which I shall look up. Flower’s Andamanese measurements I know, but as there are only 12 ♂ crania & 12 ♀ crania, the constants can hardly be satisfactorily determined, at least for my purposes. They are undoubtedly roundheaded, but this is emphasised by Flower’s measurements of length. Can you refer me to any good collection of American Indian skulls? I should be very thankful for a reference.
Next as to Mook. I think his collection is distinctly homogeneous whatever it may be. You use the smallness of the variability in the case of the new race as an argument for homogeneousness (an argument which I think must be very cautiously applied), but Mook’s Egyptians have remarkably small variability also, if not as small as your new race. Then so far as I have gone yet variability in breadth is very sensibly greater than variability in length in all races I have worked out numbers for. Thus German Bavarian peasants, modern Parisians, Libyans(?) and Mook’s Egyptians have a mean length not so very different, but widely different breadths. It seems to me so far then (since breadth also has a high coefficient of variation) that roundheads have been derived from longheads by a selection of breadth rather than length.
I should be especially glad to see data to show that height & length increase more readily than width as you suggest.
Of course it is quite possible for longheads to have come from round by a selection of small breadths. The lengths being the same small breadth might be an advantage at birth, were not indeed longheadedness on this occasion provided by other means!
Yours very truly,
Karl Pearson.’
-
