CHAPTER XX

EUGENICS AND EUTHENICS

Emphasis has been given, in several of the foregoing chapters, to the

desirability of inheriting a good constitution and a high degree of

vigor and disease-resistance. It has been asserted that no measures of

hygiene and sanitation can take the place of such inheritance. It is now

desirable to ascertain the limits within which good inheritance is

effective, and this may be conveniently done by a study of the lives of

a group of people who inherited exceptionally strong physical

constitutions.

The people referred to are taken from a collection of histories of long

life made by the Genealogical Record Office of Washington.[189] One

hundred individuals were picked out at random, each of whom had died at

the age of 90 or more, and with the record of each individual were

placed those of all his brothers and sisters. Any family was rejected in

which there was a record of wholly accidental death (e.g., families of

which a member had been killed in the Civil War). The 100 families, or

more correctly fraternities or sibships, were classified by the number

of children per fraternity, as follows:

Number of Total number

Number of children per of children

fraternities fraternity in group

1 2 2

11 3 33

8 4 32

17 5 85

13 6 78

14 7 98

9 8 72

11 9 99

10 10 100

3 11 33

2 12 24

1 13 13

--- ---

100 669

The average at death of these 669 persons was 64.7 years. The child

mortality (first 4 years of life) was 7.5% of the total mortality, 69

families showing no deaths of that kind. The group is as a whole,

therefore, long-lived.

The problem was to measure the resemblance between brothers and sisters

in respect of longevity,--to find whether knowledge of the age at which

one died would justify a prediction as to the age at death of the

others,--or technically, it was to measure the fraternal correlation of

longevity. A zero coefficient here would show that there is no

association; that from the age at which one dies, nothing whatever can

be predicted as to the age at which the others will die. Since it is

known that heredity is a large factor in longevity, such a finding would

mean that all deaths were due to some accident which made the

inheritance of no account.

In an ordinary population it has been found that the age at death of

brothers and sisters furnishes a coefficient of correlation of the order

of .3, which shows that heredity does determine the age at which one

shall die to considerable extent, but not absolutely.[190]

The index of correlation[191] between the lengths of life within the

fraternity in these 100 selected families, furnished a coefficient

of-.0163±.0672, practically zero. In other words, if the age is known at

which a member of one of these families died, whether it be one month or

100 years, nothing whatever can be predicted about the age at which his

brothers and sisters died.

Remembering that longevity is in general inherited, and that it is found

in the families of all the people of this study (since one in each

fraternity lived to be 90 or over) how is one to interpret this zero

coefficient? Evidently it means that although these people had inherited

a high degree of longevity, their deaths were brought about by causes

which prevented the heredity from getting full expression. As far as

hereditary potentialities are concerned, it can be said that all their

deaths were due to accident, using that word in a broad sense to include

all non-selective deaths by disease. If they had all been able to get

the full benefit of their heredity, it would appear that each of these

persons might have lived to 90 or more, as did the one in each family

who was recorded by the Genealogical Record Office. Genetically, these

other deaths may be spoken of as premature.

In an ordinary population, the age of death is determined to the extent

of probably 50% by heredity. In this selected long-lived population,

heredity appears not to be responsible in any measurable degree

whatsoever for the differences in age at death.

The result may be expressed in another, and perhaps more striking, way.

Of the 669 individuals studied, a hundred--namely, one child in each

family--lived beyond 90; and there were a few others who did. But some

550 of the group, though they had inherited the potentiality of reaching

the average age of 90, actually died somewhere around 60; they failed by

at least one-third to live up to the promise of their inheritance. If we

were to generalize from this single case, we would have to say that

five-sixths of the population does not make the most of its physical

inheritance.

This is certainly a fact that discourages fatalistic optimism. The man

who tells himself that, because of his magnificent inherited

constitution, he can safely take any risk, is pretty sure to take too

many risks and meet with a non-selective--i.e., genetically, a

premature--death, when he might in the nature of things have lived

almost a generation longer.

It should be remarked that most of the members of this group seem to

have lived in a hard environment. They appear to belong predominantly to

the lower strata of society; many of them are immigrants and only a very

few of them, to judge by a cursory inspection of the records, possessed

more than moderate means. This necessitated a frugal and industrious

life which in many ways was doubtless favorable to longevity but which

may often have led to overexposure, overwork, lack of proper medical

treatment, or other causes of a non-selective death. We would not push

the conclusion too far, but we can not doubt that this investigation

shows the folly of ignoring the environment,--shows that the best

inherited constitution must have a fair chance. And what has here been

found for a physical character, would probably hold good in even greater

degree for a mental character. All that man inherits is the capacity to

develop along a certain line under the influence of proper

stimuli,--food and exercise. The object of eugenics is to see that the

inherent capacity is there. Given that, the educational system is next

needed to furnish the stimuli. The consistent eugenist is therefore an

ardent euthenist. He not only works for a better human stock but,

because he does not want to see his efforts wasted, he always works to

provide the best possible environment for this better stock.

In so far, then, as euthenics is actually providing man with more

favorable surroundings,--not with ostensibly more favorable surroundings

which, in reality, are unfavorable--there can be no antagonism between

it and eugenics. Eugenics is, in fact, a prerequisite of euthenics, for

it is only the capable and altruistic man who can contribute to social

progress; and such a man can only be produced through eugenics.

Eugenic fatalism, a blind faith in the omnipotence of heredity

regardless of the surroundings in which it is placed, has been shown by

the study of long-lived families to be unjustified. It was found that

even those who inherited exceptional longevity usually did not live as

long as their inheritance gave them the right to expect. If they had had

more euthenics, they should have lived longer.

But this illustration certainly gives no ground for a belief that

euthenics is sufficient to prolong one's life _beyond_ the inherited

limit. A study of these long-lived families from another point of view

will reveal that heredity is the primary factor and that good

environment, euthenics, is the secondary one.

For this purpose we augment the 100 families of the preceding section by

the addition of 240 more families like them, and we examine each family

history to find how many of the children died before completing the

fourth year of life. The data are summarized in the following table:

CHILD MORTALITY IN FAMILIES OF LONG-LIVED STOCK, GENEALOGICAL RECORD

OFFICE DATA

Size of No. of families No. of families Total no.

family investigated showing deaths of deaths

under 5 years

1 child 6 0 0

2 children 6 0 0

3 " 38 4 5

4 " 40 6 7

5 " 38 4 4

6 " 44 12 13

7 " 34 8 11

8 " 46 13 18

9 " 31 14 20

10 " 27 14 14

11 " 13 6 9

12 " 13 9 16

13 " 1 0 0

14 " 2 0 0

17 " 1 1 2

--- --- ---

340 91 119

The addition of the new families (which were not subjected to any

different selection than the first 100) has brought down the child

mortality rate. For the first 100, it was found to be 7.5%. If in the

above table the number of child deaths, 119, be divided by the total

number of children represented, 2,259, the child mortality rate for this

population is found to be 5.27%, or 53 per thousand.

The smallness of this figure may be seen by comparison with the

statistics of the registration area, U. S. Census of 1880, when the child

mortality (0-4 years) was 400 per thousand, as calculated by Alexander

Graham Bell. A mortality of 53 for the first four years of life is

smaller than any district known in the United States, even to-day, can

show for the _first_ year of life _alone_. If any city could bring the

deaths of babies during their first twelve months down to 53 per 1,000,

it would think it had achieved the impossible; but here is a population

in which 53 per 1,000 covers the deaths, not only of the fatal first 12

months, but of the following three years in addition.

Now this population with an unprecedentedly low rate of child mortality

is not one which had had the benefit of any Baby Saving Campaign, nor

even the knowledge of modern science. Its mothers were mostly poor, many

of them ignorant; they lived frequently under conditions of hardship;

they were peasants and pioneers. Their babies grew up without doctors,

without pasteurized milk, without ice, without many sanitary

precautions, usually on rough food. But they had one advantage which no

amount of applied science can give after birth--namely, good heredity.

They had inherited exceptionally good constitutions.

It is not by accident that inherited longevity in a family is associated

with low mortality of its children. The connection between the two facts

was first discovered by Mary Beeton and Karl Pearson in their pioneer

work on the inheritance of duration of life. They found that high infant

mortality was associated with early death of parents, while the

offspring of long-lived parents showed few deaths in childhood. The

correlation of the two facts was quite regular, as will be evident from

a glance at the following tables prepared by A. Ploetz:

LENGTH OF LIFE OF MOTHERS AND CHILD-MORTALITY OF THEIR DAUGHTERS.

ENGLISH QUAKER FAMILIES, DATA OF BEETON AND PEARSON, ARRANGED BY

PLOETZ

Year of life in which mothers died At

all

0-38 39-53 54-68 69-83 84 up ages

No. of daughters 234 304 305 666 247 1846

No. of them who died in

first 5 years 122 114 118 131 26 511

Per cent. of daughters

who died 52.1 37.5 29.9 19.7 10.5 27.7

LENGTH OF LIFE OF FATHERS AND CHILD-MORTALITY OF THEIR

DAUGHTERS

Year of life in which fathers died At

0-38 39-53 54-68 69-83 84 up all

ages

No. of daughters 105 284 585 797 236 2009

No. of them who died in

first 5 years 51 98 156 177 40 522

Per cent. of daughters

who died 48.6 34.5 26.7 22.2 17.0 26.0

To save space, we do not show the relation between parent and son; it is

similar to that of parent and daughter which is shown in the preceding

tables. In making comparison with the 340 families from the Genealogical

Record Office, above studied, it must be noted that Dr. Ploetz' tables

include one year longer in the period of child mortality, being computed

for the first five years of life instead of the first four. His

percentages would therefore be somewhat lower if computed on the basis

used in the American work.

These various data demonstrate the existence of a considerable

correlation between short life (_brachybioty_, Karl Pearson calls it) in

parent and short life in offspring. Not only is the tendency to live

long inherited, but the tendency _not_ to live long is likewise

inherited.

But perhaps the reader may think they show nothing of the sort. He may

fancy that the early death of a parent left the child without sufficient

care, and that neglect, poverty, or some other factor of euthenics

brought about the child's death. Perhaps it lacked a mother's loving

attention, or perhaps the father's death removed the wage-earner of the

family and the child thenceforth lacked the necessities of life.

Dr. Ploetz has pointed out[192] that this objection is not valid,

because the influence of the parent's death is seen to hold good even to

the point where the child was too old to require any assistance. If the

facts applied only to cases of early death, the supposed objection might

be weighty, but the correlation exists from one end of the age-scale to

the other. It is not credible that a child is going to be deprived of

any necessary maternal care when its mother dies at the age of 69; the

child herself was probably married long before the death of the mother.

Nor is it credible that the death of the father takes bread from the

child's mouth, leaving it to starve to death in the absence of a pension

for widowed mothers, if the father died at 83, when the "child" herself

was getting to be an old woman. The early death of a parent may

occasionally bring about the child's death for a reason wholly

unconnected with heredity, but the facts just pointed out show that such

cases are exceptional. The steady association of the child death-rate

and parent death-rate _at all ages_ demonstrates that heredity is a

common cause.

But the reader may suspect another fallacy. The cause of this

association is really environmental, he may think, and the same poverty

or squalor which causes the child to die early may cause the parent to

die early. They may both be of healthy, long-lived stock, but forced to

live in a pestiferous slum which cuts both of them off prematurely and

thereby creates a spurious correlation in the statistics.

We can dispose of this objection most effectively by bringing in new

evidence. It will probably be admitted that in the royal families of

Europe, the environment is as good as knowledge and wealth can make it.

No child dies for lack of plenty of food and the best medical care, even

if his father or mother died young. And the members of this caste are

not exposed to any such unsanitary conditions, or such economic pressure

as could possibly cause both parent and child to die prematurely. If the

association between longevity of parent and child mortality holds for

the royal families of Europe and their princely relatives, it can hardly

be regarded as anything but the effect of heredity,--of the inheritance

of a certain type of constitution.

Dr. Ploetz studied the deaths of 3,210 children in European royalty,

from this viewpoint. The following table shows the relation between

father and child:

LENGTH OF LIFE OF FATHERS AND CHILD-MORTALITY OF THEIR CHILDREN IN

ROYAL AND PRINCELY FAMILIES, PLOETZ' DATA

At

Year of life in which fathers died Years all

ages

16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76-85 86 up

No. of children. 23 90 367 545 725 983 444 33 3210

No. who died in

first 5 years 12 29 115 171 200 254 105 1 887

Per cent. who

died 52.2 32.2 31.3 31.4 27.6 25.8 23.6 3.0 27.6

Allowing for the smallness of some of the groups, it is evident that

the amount of correlation is about the same here as among the English

Quakers of the Beeton-Pearson investigation, whose mortality was shown

in the two preceding tables. In the healthiest group from the royal

families--the cases in which the father lived to old age--the amount of

child mortality is about the same as that of the Hyde family in America,

which Alexander Graham Bell has studied--namely, somewhere around 250

per 1,000. One may infer that the royal families are rather below par in

soundness of constitution.[193]

All these studies agree perfectly in showing that the amount of child

mortality is determined primarily by the physical constitution of the

parents, as measured by their longevity. In the light of these facts,

the nature of the extraordinarily low child mortality shown in the 340

families from the Genealogical Record Office, with which we began the

study of this point, can hardly be misunderstood. These families have

the best inherited constitution possible and the other studies cited

would make us certain of finding a low child mortality among them, even

if we had not directly investigated the facts.

If the interpretation which we have given is correct, the conclusion is

inevitable that child mortality is primarily a problem of eugenics, and

that all other factors are secondary. There is found to be no warrant

for the statement so often repeated in one form or another, that "the

fundamental cause of the excessive rate of infant mortality in

industrial communities is poverty, inadequate incomes, and low standards

of living."[194] Royalty and its princely relatives are not

characterized by a low standard of living, and yet the child mortality

among them is very high--somewhere around 400 per 1,000, in cases where

a parent died young. If poverty is responsible in the one case, it must

be in the other--which is absurd. Or else the logical absurdity is

involved of inventing one cause to explain an effect to-day and a wholly

different cause to explain the same effect to-morrow. This is

unjustifiable in any case, and it is particularly so when the single

cause that explains both cases is so evident. If weak heredity causes

high mortality in the royal families, why, similarly, can not weak

heredity cause high infant mortality in the industrial communities? We

believe it does account for much of it, and that the inadequate income

and low standard of living are largely the consequences of inferior

heredity, mental as well as physical. The parents in the Genealogical

Record Office files had, many of them, inadequate incomes and low

standards of living under frontier conditions, but their children grew

up while those of the royal families were dying in spite of every

attention that wealth could command and science could furnish.

If the infant mortality problem is to be solved on the basis of

knowledge and reason, it must be recognized that sanitation and hygiene

can not take the place of eugenics any more than eugenics can dispense

with sanitation and hygiene. It must be recognized that the death-rate

in childhood is largely selective, and that the most effective way to

cut it down is to endow the children with better constitutions. This can

not be done solely by any euthenic campaign; it can not be done by

swatting the fly, abolishing the midwife, sterilizing the milk, nor by

any of the other panaceas sometimes proposed.

But, it may be objected, this discussion ignores the actual facts.

Statistics show that infant mortality campaigns _have_ consistently

produced reductions in the death-rate. The figures for New York, which

could be matched in dozens of other cities, show that the number of

deaths per 1,000 births, in the first year of life, has steadily

declined since a determined campaign to "Save the Babies" was started:

1902 181

1903 152

1904 162

1905 159

1906 153

1907 144

1908 128

1909 129

1910 125

1911 112

1912 105

1913 102

1914 95

To one who can not see beyond the immediate consequences of an action,

such figures as the above indeed give quite a different idea of the

effects of an infant mortality campaign, than that which we have just

tried to create. And it is a great misfortune that euthenics so often

fails to look beyond the immediate effect, fails to see what may happen

next year, or 10 years from now, or in the next generation.

We admit that it is possible to keep a lot of children alive who would

otherwise have died in the first few months of life. It is being done,

as the New York figures, and pages of others that could be cited, prove.

The ultimate result is twofold:

1. Some of those who are doomed by heredity to a selective death, but

are kept alive through the first year, die in the second or third or

fourth year. They must die sooner or later; they have not inherited

sufficient resistance to survive more than a limited time. If they are

by a great effort carried through the first year, it is only to die in

the next. This is a statement which we have nowhere observed in the

propaganda of the infant mortality movement; and it is perhaps a

disconcerting one. It can only be proved by refined statistical methods,

but several independent determinations by the English biometricians

leave no doubt as to the fact. This work of Karl Pearson, E. C. Snow, and

Ethel M. Elderton, was cited in our chapter on natural selection; the

reader will recall how they showed that nature is weeding out the

weaklings, and in proportion to the stringency with which she weeds them

out at the start, there are fewer weaklings left to die in succeeding

years.

To put the facts in the form of a truism, part of the children born in

any district in a given year are doomed by heredity to an early death;

and if they die in one year they will not be alive to die in the

succeeding year, and vice versa. Of course there are in addition infant

deaths which are not selective and which if prevented would leave the

infant with as good a chance as any to live.

In the light of these researches, we are forced to conclude that

baby-saving campaigns accomplish less than is thought; that the supposed

gain is to some extent temporary and illusory.

2. There is still another consequence. If the gain is by great exertions

made more than temporary; if the baby who would otherwise have died in

the first months is brought to adult life and reproduction, it means in

many cases the dissemination of another strain of weak heredity, which

natural selection would have cut off ruthlessly in the interests of race

betterment. In so far, then, as the infant mortality movement is not

futile it is, from a strict biological viewpoint, often detrimental to

the future of the race.

Do we then discourage all attempts to save the babies? Do we leave them

all to natural selection? Do we adopt the "better dead" gospel?

Unqualifiedly, no! The sacrifice of the finer human feelings, which

would accompany any such course, would be a greater loss to the race

than is the eugenic loss from the perpetuation of weak strains of

heredity. The abolition of altruistic and humanitarian sentiment for the

purpose of race betterment would ultimately defeat its own end by making

race betterment impossible.

But race betterment will also be impossible unless a clear distinction

is made between measures that really mean race betterment of a

fundamental and permanent nature, and measures which do not.

We have chosen the Infant Mortality Movement for analysis in this

chapter because it is an excellent example of the kind of social

betterment which is taken for granted, by most of its proponents, to be

a fundamental piece of race betterment; but which, as a fact, often

means race impairment. No matter how abundant and urgent are the reasons

for continuing to reduce infant mortality wherever possible, it is

dangerous to close the eyes to the fact that the gain from it is of a

kind that must be paid for in other ways; that to carry on the movement

without adding eugenics to it will be a short-sighted policy, which

increases the present happiness of the world at the cost of diminishing

the happiness of posterity through the perpetuation of inferior strains.

While some euthenic measures are eugenically evils, even if necessary

ones, it must not be inferred that all euthenic measures are dysgenic.

Many of them, such as the economic and social changes we have suggested

in earlier chapters, are an important part of eugenics. Every euthenic

measure should be scrutinized from the evolutionary standpoint; if it is

eugenic as well as euthenic, it should be whole-heartedly favored; if it

is dysgenic but euthenic it should be condemned or adopted, according to

whether or not the gain in all ways from its operation will exceed the

damage.

In general, euthenics, when not accompanied by some form of selection

(i. e., eugenics) ultimately defeats its own end. If it is accompanied

by rational selection, it can usually be indorsed. Eugenics, on the

other hand, is likewise inadequate unless accompanied by constant

improvement in the surroundings; and its advocates must demand euthenics

as an accompaniment of selection, in order that the opportunity for

getting a fair selection may be as free as possible. If the euthenist

likewise takes pains not to ignore the existence of the racial factor,

then the two schools are standing on the same ground, and it is merely a

matter of taste or opportunity, whether one emphasizes one side or the

other. Each of the two factions, sometimes thought to be opposing, will

be seen to be getting the same end result, namely, human progress.

Not only are the two schools working for the same end, but each must

depend in still another way upon the other, in order to make headway.

The eugenist can not see his measures put into effect except through

changes in law and custom--i. e., euthenic changes. He must and does

appeal to euthenics to secure action. The social reformer, on the other

hand, can not see any improvements made in civilization except through

the discoveries and inventions of some citizens who are inherently

superior in ability. He in turn must depend on eugenics for every

advance that is made.

It may make the situation clearer to state it in the customary terms of

biological philosophy. Selection does not necessarily result in

progressive evolution. It merely brings about the adaptation of a

species or a group to a given environment. The tapeworm is the stock

example. In human evolution, the nature of this environment will

determine whether adaptation to it means progress or retrogression,

whether it leaves a race happier and more productive, or the reverse.

All racial progress, or eugenics, therefore, depends on the creation of

a good environment, and the fitting of the race to that environment.

Every improvement in the environment should bring about a corresponding

biological adaptation. The two factors in evolution must go side by

side, if the race is to progress in what the human mind considers the

direction of advancement. In this sense, euthenics and eugenics bear the

same relation to human progress as a man's two legs do to his

locomotion.

Social workers in purely euthenic fields have frequently failed to

remember this process of adaptation, in their efforts to change the

environment. Eugenists, in centering their attention on adaptation, have

sometimes paid too little attention to the kind of environment to which

the race was being adapted. The present book holds that the second

factor is just as important as the first, for racial progress; that one

leg is just as important as the other, to a pedestrian. Its only

conflict with euthenics appertains to such euthenic measures as impair

the adaptability of the race to the better environment they are trying

to make.

Some supposedly euthenic measures opposed by eugenics are not truly

euthenic, as for instance the limitation of a superior family in order

that all may get a college education. For these spurious euthenic

measures, something truly euthenic should be substituted.

Measures which show a real conflict may be typified by the infant

mortality movement. There can be no doubt but that sanitation and

hygiene, prenatal care and intelligent treatment of mothers and babies,

are truly euthenic and desirable. At the same time, as has been shown,

these euthenic measures result in the survival of inferior children, who

directly or through their posterity will be a drag on the race. Euthenic

measures of this type should be accompanied by counterbalancing measures

of a more eugenic character.

Barring these two types, euthenics forms a necessary concomitant of the

eugenic program; and, as we have tried to emphasize, eugenics is

likewise necessary to the complete success of every euthenic program.

How foolish, then, is antagonism between the two forces! Both are

working toward the same end of human betterment, and neither can succeed

without the other. When either attempts to eliminate the other from its

work, it ceases to advance toward its goal. In which camp one works is

largely a matter of taste. If on a road there is a gradient to be

leveled, it will be brought down most quickly by two parties of workmen,

one cutting away at the top, the other filling in the bottom. For the

two parties to indulge in mutual scorn and recrimination would be no

more absurd than for eugenics and euthenics to be put in opposition to

each other. The only reason they have been in opposition is because some

of the workers did not clearly understand the nature of their work. With

the dissemination of a knowledge of biology, this ground of antagonism

will disappear.

APPENDIX A

OVARIAN TRANSPLANTATION

In 1890, W. Heape published an account of some experiments with rabbits.

Taking the fertilized egg of an angora rabbit (i. e., a long-haired,

white one) from the oviduct of its mother previous to its attachment to

the wall of the uterus, he transferred it to the uterus of a Belgian

hare, a rabbit which is short-haired and gray. The egg developed

normally in the new body and produced an animal with all the

characteristics, as far as could be seen, of the real mother, rather

than the foster-mother. Its coat was long and white, and there was not

the slightest trace of influence of the short, gray-haired doe in whose

body it had grown.

Here was a case in which environment certainly failed to show any

modifying influence. But it was objected that the transplanted egg was

already full-grown and fertilized when the transfer was made, and that

therefore no modification need be expected. If the egg were transferred

at an earlier stage, it was thought, the result might be different.

W. E. Castle and J. C. Phillips therefore undertook an experiment to

which this objection should not be possible.[195]

"A female albino guinea-pig just attaining sexual maturity was by an

operation deprived of its ovaries, and instead of the removed ovaries

there were introduced into her body the ovaries of a young black female

guinea-pig, not yet sexually mature, aged about three weeks. The grafted

animal was now mated with a male albino guinea-pig. From numerous

experiments with albino guinea-pigs it may be stated emphatically that

normal albinos mated together, without exception, produce only albino

young, and the presumption is strong, therefore, that had this female

not been operated on she would have done the same. She produced,

however, by the albino male three litters of young, which together

consisted of six individuals, all black. The first litter of young was

produced about six months after the operation, the last about one year.

The transplanted ovarian tissue must have remained in its new

environment therefore from four to ten months before the eggs attained

full growth and were discharged; ample time, it would seem, for the

influence of a foreign body upon the inheritance to show itself were

such influence possible."

While such experiments must not be stretched too far, in application to

the human species, they certainly offer striking evidence of the fact

that the characters of any individual are mainly due to something in the

germ-plasm, and that this germ-plasm is to a surprising degree

independent of any outside influence, even such an intimate influence as

that of the body of the mother in which it reaches maturity.

APPENDIX B

"DYNAMIC EVOLUTION"

As C. L. Redfield has secured considerable publicity for his attempt to

bolster up the Lamarckian theory, it deserves a few words of comment.

His contention is that "the energy in animals, known as intelligence and

physical strength, is identical with the energy known in mechanics, and

is governed by the same laws." He therefore concludes that (1) an animal

stores up energy in its body, in some undescribed and mystical way, and

(2) that in some equally undescribed and mystical way it transmits this

stored-up energy to its offspring. It follows that he thinks superior

offspring are produced by parents of advanced age, because the latter

have had more time to do work and store up energy for transmission. In

his own words:

"Educating the grandfather helps to make the grandson a superior

person.... We are, in our inheritance, exactly what our ancestors

made us by the work they performed before reproducing. Whether our

descendants are to be better or worse than we are will depend upon

the amount and kind of work we do before we produce them."

The question of the influence of parental age on the characters of the

offspring is one of great importance, for the solution of which the

necessary facts have not yet been gathered together. The data compiled

by Mr. Redfield are of value, but his interpretation of them can not be

accepted for the following reasons.

1. In the light of modern psychology, it is absurd to lump all sorts of

mental ability under one head, and to suppose that the father's exercise

of reasoning power, for example, will store up "energy" to be manifested

in the offspring in the shape of executive or artistic ability. Mental

abilities are much subdivided and are inherited separately. Mr.

Redfield's idea of the process is much too crude.

Moreover, Mr. Redfield's whole conception of the increase of

intelligence with increase of age in a parent shows a disregard of the

facts of psychology. As E. A. Doll has pointed out,[196] in criticising

Mr. Redfield's recent and extreme claim that feeble-mindedness is the

product of early marriage, it is incorrect to speak of 20-, 30-, or

40-year standards of intelligence; for recent researches in measurement

of mental development indicate that the heritable standard of

intelligence of adults increases very little beyond the age of

approximately 16 years. A person 40 years old has an additional

_experience_ of a quarter of a century, and so has a larger mental

content, but his intelligence is still nearly at the 16-year level.

Mental activity is the effect, not the cause, of mental growth or

development. Education merely turns inherent mental powers to good

account; it makes very little change in those powers themselves. To

suppose that a father can, by study, raise his innate level of

intelligence and transmit it at the new level to his son, is a naïve

idea which finds no warrant in the known facts of mental development.

2. In his entire conception of the storing-up and transmission of

energy, Mr. Redfield has fallen victim to a confusion of ideas due to

the use of the same word to mean two different things. He thinks of

energy as an engineer; he declares the body-cell is a storage battery;

he believes that the athlete by performing work stores up energy in his

body (in some mysterious and unascertainable way) just as the clock

stores up energy when it is wound. The incorrectness of supposing that

the so-called energy of a man is of that nature, is remarkable. If,

hearing Bismarck called a man of iron, one should analyze his remains to

find out how much more iron he contained than ordinary men, it would be

a performance exactly comparable to Mr. Redfield's, when he thinks of a

man's "energy" as something stored up by work.

As a fact, a man contains less energy, after the performance of work,

than he did at the start. All of his "energy" comes from the metabolism

of food that he has previously eaten. His potential energy is the food

stored up in his body, particularly the glycogen in the liver and

muscles.[197]

Why, then, can one man run faster than another? Mr. Redfield thinks it

is because the sprinter has, by previous work, stored up energy in his

body, which carries him over the course more rapidly than the sluggard

who has not been subjected to systematic training. But the differences

in men's ability are not due to the amount of energy they have stored

up. It is due rather to differences in their structure (using this word

in a very broad sense), which produce differences in the efficiency

with which they can use the stored-up energy (i.e., food) in their

bodies. A fat Shorthorn bull contains much more stored-up energy than

does a race horse, but the latter has the better structure--coördination

of muscles with nervous system, in particular--and there is never any

doubt about how a race between the two will end. The difference between

the results achieved by a highly educated thinker and a low-grade moron

are similarly differences in structural efficiency: the moron may eat

much more, and thereby have more potential energy, than the scholar; but

the machine, the brain, can not utilize it.

The effects of training are not to store up energy in the body, for it

has been proved that work decreases rather than increases the amount of

energy in the body. How is it, then, that training increases a man's

efficiency? It is obviously by improving his "structure," and probably

the most important part of this improvement is in bringing about better

relations between the muscles and the nerves. To pursue the analogy

which Mr. Redfield so often misuses, the effect of training on the human

machine is merely to oil the bearings and straighten out bent parts, to

make it a more efficient transformer of the energy that is supplied to

it.

The foundation stone of Mr. Redfield's hypothesis is his idea that the

animal by working stores up energy. This idea is the exact reverse of

the truth. While the facts which Mr. Redfield has gathered deserve much

study, his idea of "Dynamic Evolution" need not be taken

seriously.[198]

APPENDIX C

THE "MELTING POT"

America as the "Melting Pot" of peoples is a picture often drawn by

writers who do not trouble themselves as to the precision of their

figures of speech. It has been supposed by many that all the racial

stocks in the United States were tending toward a uniform type. There

has never been any real evidence on which to base such a view, and the

study completed in 1917 by Dr. Ales Hrdlicka, curator of the

division of physical anthropology of the U. S. National Museum, furnishes

evidence against it. He examined 400 individuals of the Old White

American stock, that is, persons all of whose ancestors had been in the

United States as far as the fourth ascending generation. He found little

or no evidence that hereditary traits had been altered. Even the

descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers, the Virginia cavaliers, the

Pennsylvania Dutch and the Huguenots, while possibly not as much unlike

as their ancestors were, are in no sense a blend.

The "Melting Pot," it must be concluded, is a figure of speech; and as

far as physical anthropology is concerned, it will not be anything more

in this country, at least for many centuries.

Announcing the results of study of the first 100 males and 100 females

of his series,[199] Dr. Hrdlicka said, "The most striking result of

the examinations is the great range of variation among Old Americans in

nearly all the important measurements. The range of variation is such

that in some of the most significant determinations it equals not only

the variation of any one group, but the combined variations of all the

groups that enter into the composition of the Americans." This fact

would be interpreted by the geneticist as an evidence of hybridity. It

is clear that, at the very beginning, a number of diverse, although not

widely differing, stocks must have made up the colonial population; and

intermarriage and the influence of the environment have not welded these

stocks into one blend, but have merely produced a mosaic-like mixture.

This is good evidence of the permanence of inherited traits, although

it must be qualified by the statement that it does not apply equally to

all features of the body, the face, hands and feet having been found

less variable, for instance, than stature and form of head.

[Illustration: THE "MEAN MAN" OF THE OLD WHITE AMERICAN STOCK

FIG. 45.--Anthropologists have an ideal "mean man," whose every

feature measures the arithmetic mean or average of that feature in all

the individuals of his race. The above diagram drawn to scale from Dr.

Hrdli[vc]ka's measurements represents the mean man of Colonial ancestry.

The outline of the face is almost oblong; the head is high and

well-developed, particularly in the regions which are popularly supposed

to denote superior intelligence. In general, it is a highly specialized

type, denoting an advanced evolution.]

The stature of both American men and women is high, higher than the

average of any European nation except the Scotch. The individual

variation is, however, enormous, amounting to 16.4% of the average in

males and nearly 16% in females. For males, 174 cm. is the average

height, for females 162. The arm spread in males is greater than their

stature, in females it is less.

The average weight of the males is 154 lbs.[typo: missing comma?] of the

females 130. Taking into consideration the tall stature, these weights

are about equal to those among Europeans.

The general proportions of the body must be classed as medium, but great

fluctuations are shown.

The face is, in general, high and oval; in females it occasionally gives

the impression of narrowness. The forehead is well developed in both

sexes. The nose is prevalently long and of medium breadth, its

proportions being practically identical with those of the modern

English. The ears are longer than those of any modern immigrants except

the English. The mouth shows medium breadth in both sexes, and its

averages exactly equal those obtained for modern French.

One of the most interesting results is that there were obtained among

these first 200 individuals studied no pronounced blonds, although the

ancestry is North European, where blondness is more or less

prevalent.[200] The exact distribution is:

Male Female

Light-brown 12% 16%

Medium-brown to dark 77 68

Very dark 11 6

Golden-red and red 0 10

Dr. Hrdlicka's classification of the eye is as follows:

Male Female

Gray 2% 4%

Greenish 7 10

Blues 54 50

Browns 37 36

The head among Old Americans is in many cases notable for its good

development, particularly in males. Among 12 groups of male

immigrants[201] measured at Ellis Island under Dr. Hrdlicka's

direction in recent years, not one group quite equals in this respect

the Americans, the nearest approach being noted in the Irish, Bohemians,

English, Poles, and North Italians. The type of head, however, differs

among the Americans very widely, as is the case with most civilized

races at the present day.

Head form is most conveniently expressed by means of the cephalic index,

that is, the ratio of breadth to length. Anthropologists generally speak

of any one with an index of 75 (or where the breadth is 75% of the

length) and below this as dolichocephalic, or long-headed; from 75 to 80

is the class of the mesocephalic, intermediates; while above 80 is that

of the subbrachycephalic and brachycephalic, or round-headed. For the

most part, the Old Americans fall into the intermediate class, the

average index of males being 78.3 and that of females 79.5.

Barring a few French Huguenots, the Old Americans considered here are

mostly of British ancestry, and their head form corresponds rather

closely to that of the English of the present day. In England, as is

well known, the round-headed type of Central and Eastern Europe, the

Alpine or Celto-Slav type, has few representatives. The population is

composed principally of long-headed peoples, deriving from the two great

European stocks, the Nordic and the Mediterranean. To the latter the

frequency of dark hair and brown eyes is probably due, both in England

and America.

While the average of the Old Americans corresponds closely to the

average of the English, there is a great deal of variation in both

countries. Unfortunately, it is impossible to compare the present

Americans with their ancestors, because measurements of the latter are

lacking. But to assume that the early colonists did not differ greatly

from the modern English is probably justifiable. A comparison of modern

Americans (of the old white stock) with modern English should give basis

for an opinion as to whether the English stock underwent any marked

modifications, on coming to a new environment.

It has already been noted that the average cephalic index is practically

the same; the only possibility of a change then lies in the amount of

variability. Is the American stock more or less variable? Can a

"melting pot" influence be seen, tending to produce homogeneity, or has

change of environment rather produced greater variability, as is

sometimes said to be the case?

The amount of variability is most conveniently measured by a coefficient

known as the standard deviation ([Greek: s]), which is small when the

range of variation is small, but large when diversity of material is

great. The following comparisons of the point at issue may be made.[202]

Avg. [Greek: s]

100 American men 78.3 3.1

1011 Cambridge graduates (English males) 79.85 2.95

For the men, little difference is discernible. The Old Americans are

slightly more long-headed than the English, but the amount of variation

in this trait is nearly the same on the two sides of the ocean.

The average of the American women is 79.5 with [Greek: s] = 2.6. No

suitable series of English women has been found for comparison.(203) It

will be noted that the American women are slightly more round-headed

than the men; this is found regularly to be the case, when comparisons

of the head form of the two sexes are made in any race.

In addition to establishing norms or standards for anthropological

comparison, the main object of Dr. Hrdlicka's study was to determine

whether the descendants of the early American settlers, living in a new

environment and more or less constantly intermarrying, were being

amalgamated into a distinct sub-type of the white race. It has been

found that such amalgamation has not taken place to any important

degree. The persistence in heredity of certain features, which run down

even through six or eight generations, is one of the remarkable results

brought out by the study.

If the process could continue for a few hundred years more, Dr.

Hrdlicka thinks, it might reach a point where one could speak of the

members of old American families as of a distinct stock. But so far this

point has not been reached; the Americans are almost as diverse and

variable, it appears, as were their first ancestors in this country.

APPENDIX D

THE ESSENCE OF MENDELISM

It is half a century since the Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel, published

in a provincial journal the results of his now famous breeding

experiments with garden peas. They lay unnoticed until 1900, when three

other breeders whose work had led them to similar conclusions, almost

simultaneously discovered the work of Mendel and gave it to the world.

Breeding along the lines marked out by Mendel at once became the most

popular method of attack, among those who were studying heredity. It

became an extremely complicated subject, which can not be grasped

without extended study, but its fundamentals can be briefly summarized.

Inherited differences in individuals, it will be admitted, are due to

differences in their germ-plasms. It is convenient to think of these

differences in germ-plasms (that is, differences in heredity) as being

due to the presence in the germ-plasm of certain hypothetical units,

which are usually referred to as factors. The factor, nowadays, is the

ultimate unit of Mendelian research. Each of these factors is considered

to be nearly or quite constant,--that is, it undergoes little, or no

change from generation to generation. It is ordinarily resistant to

"contamination" by other factors with which it may come in contact in

the cell. The first fundamental principle of Mendelism, then, is the

existence of relatively constant units, the Mendelian factors, as the

basis for transmission of all the traits that go to make up an animal or

plant.

Experimental breeding gives reason to believe that each factor has one

or more alternatives, which may take its place in the mechanism of

heredity, thereby changing the visible character of the individual plant

or animal in which it occurs. To put the matter a little differently,

one germ-cell differs from another in having alternatives present in

place of some of the factors of the latter. A given germ-cell can never

have more than one of the possible alternatives of each factor. These

alternatives of a factor are called its allelomorphs.

Now a mature germ-cell has a single system of these factors: but when

two germ-cells unite, there result from that union two kinds of

cells--namely, immature germ-cells and body-cells; and both these kinds

of cells contain a double system of factors, because of course they have

received a single entire system from each parent. This is the second of

the fundamental principles of Mendelism: that the factors are single in

the mature germ-cell, but in duplicate in the body-cell (and also in the

immature germ-cell).

In every cell with a double system of factors, there are necessarily

present two representatives from each set of allelomorphs, but these may

or may not be alike--or in technical language the individual may be

homozygous, or heterozygous, as regards the given set of alternative

factors. Looking at it from another angle, there is a single visible

character in the plant or animal, but it is produced by a double factor,

in the germ-plasm.

When the immature germ-cell, with its double system of factors, matures,

it throws out half the factors, retaining only a single system: and the

allelomorphic factors which then segregate into different cells are, as

has been said above, ordinarily uninfluenced by their stay together.

But the allelomorphic factors are not the only ones which are segregated

into different germ-cells, at the maturation of the cell; for the

factors which are not alternative are likewise distributed, more or less

independently of each other, so that it is largely a matter of chance

whether factors which enter a cross in the same germ-cell, segregate

into the same germ-cell or different ones, in the next generation. This

is the next fundamental principle of Mendelism, usually comprehended

under the term "segregation," although, as has been pointed out, it is

really a double process, the segregation of alternative factors being a

different thing from the segregation of non-alternative factors.

From this fact of segregation, it follows that as many kinds of

germ-cells can be formed by an individual, as there are possible

combinations of factors, on taking one alternative from each pair of

allelomorphs present. In practice, this means that the possible number

of different germ-cells is almost infinitely great, as would perhaps be

suspected by anyone who has tried to find two living things that are

just alike.

[Illustration: THE CARRIERS OF HEREDITY

FIG. 46.--Many different lines of study have made it seem

probable that much, although not all, of the heredity of an animal or

plant is carried in the nucleus of the germ-cell and that in this

nucleus it is further located in little rods or threads which can be

easily stained so as to become visible, and which have the name of

chromosomes. In the above illustration four different views of the

nucleus of the germ-cell of an earthworm are shown, with the chromosomes

in different stages; in section 19 each chromosome is doubled up like a

hairpin. Study of the fruit-fly Drosophila has made it seem probable not

only that the hypothetical factors of heredity are located in the

chromosomes, but that each factor has a perfectly definite location in

its chromosome; and T. H. Morgan and his associates have worked out an

ingenious method of measuring the distance from either end, at which the

factor lies. Photomicrograph after Foot and Strobell.]

Such is the essence of Mendelism; and the reader is probably ready to

admit that it is not a simple matter, even when reduced to the

simplest terms. To sum up, the principal features at the base of the

hypothetical structure are these:

1. There exist relatively constant units in the germ-plasm.

2. There are two very distinct relationships which these units may show

to each other. Two (or more) unit factors may be alternatives in the

mechanism of inheritance, indicating that one is a variation (or loss)

of the other; or they may be independent of each other in the mechanism

of inheritance.

3. The mature germ-cell contains a single system of independent factors

(one representative from each set of alternates).

The immature germ-cells, and body-cells, have double systems of

independent factors (two from each set of alternatives).

4. The double system arises simply from the union of two single systems

(i. e., two germ-cells), without union or even contamination of the

factors involved.

In the formation of a single system (mature germ-cells) from a double

(immature germ-cells), pairs of alternates separate, passing into

different germ-cells. Factors not alternates may or may not

separate--the distribution is largely a matter of chance.

Such are the fundamental principles of Mendelism; but on them was early

grafted a theoretical structure due mainly to the German zoölogist,

August Weismann. To understand his part in the story, we must advert to

that much mooted and too often misunderstood problem furnished by the

chromosomes. (See Fig. 46.) These little rods of easily stained

material, which are found in every cell of the body, were picked out by

Professor Weismann as the probable carriers of heredity. With remarkable

acuteness, he predicted their behavior at cell-division, the intricate

nature of which is usually the despair of every beginner in biology.

When Mendelian breeding, in the early years of this century, showed

temporary pairing and subsequent separation of units in the

germ-cell, it was soon realized that the observed facts of breeding

fitted to a nicety the observed facts (predicted by Weismann) of

chromosome-behavior; for at each cell-division the chromosomes, too,

pair and separate again. The observed behavior of transmitted characters

in animals and plants followed, in so many cases, the observed behavior

of the chromosomes, that many students found it almost impossible to

believe that there was no connection between the two, and Dr. Weismann's

prediction, that the chromosomes are the carriers of heredity, came to

be looked on as a fact, by many biologists.

But when so much of Professor Weismann's system was accepted, other

parts of it went along, including a hypothetical system of "determiners"

in the chromosome, which were believed to determine the development of

characters in the organism. Every trait of an animal or plant, it was

supposed, must be represented in the germ-plasm by its own determiner;

one trait, one determiner. Did a notch in the ear run through a

pedigree? Then it must be due to a determiner for a notch in the ear in

the germ-plasm. Was mathematical ability hereditary? Then there must be

a determiner, the expression of which was mathematical ability.

For a while, this hypothesis was of service in the development of

genetics; some students even began to forget that it was a hypothesis,

and to talk as if it were a fact. But the exhaustive tests of

experimental breeding of plants and animals have long caused most of the

advanced students of genetics to drop this simple hypothesis.

In its place stands the factorial hypothesis, evolved by workers in

America, England, and France at about the same time. As explained in

Chapter V, this hypothesis carries the assumption that every visible

character is due to the effects of not one but many factors in the

germ-cell.

In addition to these fundamentals, there are numerous extensions and

corollaries, some of them of a highly speculative nature. The reader who

is interested in pursuing the subject farther must turn to one of the

text-books on Mendelism.

In plant-breeding a good deal of progress has been made in the exact

study of Mendelian heredity; in animal breeding, somewhat less; in human

heredity, very little. The reason is obvious: that experiments can not

be made in man, and students must depend on the results of such matings

as they can find; that only a very few offspring result from each

mating; and that generations are so long that no one observer can have

more than a few under his eyes. These difficulties make Mendelian

research in man a very slow and uncertain matter.

Altogether, it is probable that something like a hundred characters in

man have been pointed out as inherited in Mendelian fashion. A large

part of these are pathological conditions or rare abnormalities.

But the present writers can not accept most of these cases. It has been

pointed out in Chapter V that there are good reasons for doubting that

feeble-mindedness is inherited in a simple Mendelian fashion, although

it is widely accepted as such. We can not help feeling that in most

cases heredity in man is being made to appear much simpler than it

really is; and that particularly in mental characters, analysis of

traits has by no means reached the bottom.

If we were asked to make out a list of characters, as to the Mendelian

inheritance of which there could be little doubt, we would hardly be

able to go farther than the following:

The sex-linked characters (one kind of color-blindness, hemophilia, one

kind of night-blindness, atrophy of the optic nerve, and a few other

rare abnormalities).

Albinism. This appears to be a recessive, but probably involves multiple

allelomorphs in man, as in other animals.

Brachydactyly, apparently a dominant. This is so much cited in

text-books on Mendelism that the student might think it is a common

character. As a fact, it is extremely rare, being found in only a few

families. The similar trait of orthodactyly or symphalangism, which

likewise appears to be a good Mendelian dominant, seems to exist in only

one family. Traits like these, which are easily defined and occur very

rarely, make up a large part of the cases of probably Mendelian

heredity. They are little more than curiosities, their rarity and

abnormal nature depriving them of evolutionary significance other than

to demonstrate that Mendelian heredity does operate in man.

White blaze in the hair or, as it might better be called to show its

resemblance to the trait found in other mammals, piebaldism. A rather

rare dominant.[204]

Huntington's Chorea, which usually appears to be a good dominant,

although the last investigators (Muncey and Davenport) found some

unconformable cases.

A few abnormalities, such as a premature graying of the hair (one family

cited by K. Pearson) are well enough attested to be admitted. Many

others, such as baldness, are probably Mendelian but not yet

sufficiently supported by evidence.

None of these characters, it will be observed, is of much significance

eugenically. If the exact manner of inheritance of some of the more

important mental and physical traits were known, it would be of value.

But it is not a prerequisite for eugenic action. Enough is known for a

working program.

To sum up: the features in the modern view of heredity, which the reader

must keep in mind, are the following:

1. That the various characters which make up the physical constitution

of any individual plant or animal are due to the action (concurrently

with the environment, of course) of what are called, for convenience,

factors, separable hypothetical units in the germ-plasm, capable of

independent transmission.

2. That each visible character is due to the coöperative action of an

indefinitely large number of factors; conversely, that each of these

factors affects an indefinitely large number of characters.

APPENDIX E

USEFUL WORKS OF REFERENCE

The most complete bibliography is that published by the State Board of

Charities of the State of New York (_Eugenics and Social Welfare

Bulletin_ No. III, pp. 130, Albany, 1913).

An interesting historical review of eugenics, with critical comments on

the literature and a bibliography of 100 titles, was published by A. E.

Hamilton in the _Pedagogical Seminary_, Vol. XXI, pp. 28-61, March,

1914.

Much of the important literature of eugenics has been mentioned in

footnotes. For convenience, a few of the books which are likely to be

most useful to the student are here listed:

GENETICS AND EUGENICS, by W. E. Castle. Harvard University

Press, Cambridge, 1916.

HEREDITY AND ENVIRONMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEN, by Edwin G.

Conklin. Princeton University Press, 1915.

HEREDITY IN RELATION TO EUGENICS, by C. B. Davenport, Henry

Holt and Co., New York, 1911.

ESSAYS IN EUGENICS, by Francis Galton. Eugenics Education

Society, London, 1909.

BEING WELL-BORN, by Michael F. Guyer. Indianapolis,

Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1916.

THE SOCIAL DIRECTION OF HUMAN EVOLUTION, by W. E. Kellicott.

New York, 1911.

THE PHYSICAL BASIS OF SOCIETY, by Carl Kelsey. New York, D.

Appleton & Co., 1916.

EUGENICS, by Edward Schuster. Collins' Clear Type Press, London

and Glasgow, 1913.

HEREDITY, by J. Arthur Thompson. Edinburgh, 1908.

GENETICS, by Herbert E. Walter. The Macmillan Co., New York,

1913.

AN INTRODUCTION TO EUGENICS, by W. C. D. Whetham and C. D.

Whetham. Macmillan and Co., London, 1912.

HEREDITY AND SOCIETY, by W. C. D. Whetham and C. D. Whetham.

Longmans, Green & Co., London, 1912.

THE FAMILY AND THE NATION, by W. C. D. Whetham and C. D.

Whetham. Longmans, Green & Co., London, 1909.

The publications of the Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics,

University of London, directed by Karl Pearson, and of the Eugenics

Record Office, Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, N. Y., directed by C. B.

Davenport, furnish a constantly increasing amount of original material

on heredity.

The principal periodicals are the _Journal of Heredity_ (organ of the

American Genetic Association), 511 Eleventh St., N. W., Washington, D.

C. (monthly); and the _Eugenics Review_ (organ of the Eugenics Education

Society), Kingsway House, Kingsway, W. C., London (quarterly). These

periodicals are sent free to members of the respective societies.

Membership in the American organization is $2 a year, in the English 1

guinea a year, associate membership 5 shillings a year.

APPENDIX F

GLOSSARY

ACQUIRED CHARACTER, a modification of a germinal trait after

cell fusion. It is difficult to draw a line between characters that are

acquired and those that are inborn. The idea involved is as follows: in

a standard environment, a given factor in the germ-plasm will develop

into a trait which varies not very widely about a certain mean. The mean

of this trait is taken as representing the germinal trait in its typical

condition. But if the environment be not standard, if it be considerably

changed, the trait will develop a variation far from the mean of that

trait in the species. Thus an American, whose skin in the standard

environment of the United States would be blonde, may under the

environment of Cuba develop into a brunette. Such a wide variation from

the mean thus caused is called an acquired character; it is usually

impressed on the organism after the germinal trait has reached a full,

typical development.

ALLELOMORPH (one another form), one of a pair of factors which

are alternative to each other in Mendelian inheritance. Instead of a

single pair, there may be a group of "multiple allelomorphs," each

member being alternative to every other member of the group.

ALLELOMORPHISM, a relation between two or more factors, such

that two which are present in one zygote do not both enter into the same

gamete, but are separated into sister gametes.

BIOMETRY (life measure), the study of biology by statistical

methods.

BRACHYDACTYLY (short-finger), a condition in which the bones,

particularly of the fingers and toes, fail to grow to their normal

length. In well-marked cases one of these is a reduction from three

phalanges or joints to two.

CHARACTER (a contraction of "characteristic"), a term which is

used, often rather vaguely, to designate any function, feature, or organ

of the body or mind.

CHROMOSOME (color body, so called from its affinity for certain

stains), a body of peculiar protoplasm, in the nucleus of the cell. Each

species has its own characteristic number; the cells of the human body

contain 24 chromosomes each.

CONGENITAL (with birth), present at birth. The term fails to

distinguish between traits which are actually inherited, and

modifications acquired during prenatal life. In the interest of clear

thinking its use should be avoided so far as possible.

CORRELATION (together relation), a relation between two

variables in a certain population, such that for every variation of one,

there is a corresponding variation of the other. Mathematically, two

correlated variables are thus mutually dependent. But a correlation is

merely a statistical description of a particular case, and in some other

population the same two variables might be correlated in a different

way, other influences being at work on them.

CYTOLOGY (cell word), the study of the cell, the constituent

unit of organisms.

DETERMINER (completely end), an element or condition in a

germ-cell, supposed to be essential to the development of a particular

quality, feature, or manner of reaction of the organism which arises

from that germ-cell. The word is gradually falling into disuse, and

"factor" taking its place.

DOMINANCE (mastery), in Mendelian hybrids the capacity of a

character which is derived from only one of two generating gametes to

develop to an extent nearly or quite equal to that exhibited by an

individual which has derived the same character from both of the

generating gametes. In the absence of dominance the given character of

the hybrid usually presents a "blend" or intermediate condition between

the two parents.

DYSGENIC (bad origin), tending to impair the racial qualities

of future generations; the opposite of eugenic.

ENDOGAMY (within mating), a custom of some primitive peoples,

in compliance with which a man must choose his wife from his own group

(clan, gens, tribe, etc.).

EUGENIC (good origin), tending to improve the racial qualities

of future generations, either physical or mental.

EUTHENIC (good thriving), tending to produce beneficial

acquired characters or better conditions for people to live in, but not

tending (except incidentally and indirectly) to produce people who can

hand on the improvement by heredity.

EVOLUTION (unroll), ORGANIC, the progressive change of

living forms, usually associated with the development of complex from

simple forms.

EXOGAMY (out mating), a custom of primitive peoples which

requires a man to choose a wife from some other group (clan, gens,

tribe, etc.) than his own.

FACTOR (maker), a name given to the hypothetical _something_,

the independently inheritable element in the germ-cell, whose presence

is necessary to the development of a certain inherited character or

characters or contributes with other factors to the development of a

character. "Gene" and "determiner" are sometimes used as synonyms of

factor.

FEEBLE-MINDEDNESS, a condition in which mental development is

retarded or incomplete. It is a relative term, since an individual who

would be feeble-minded in one society might be normal or even bright in

another. The customary criterion is the inability of the individual,

because of mental defect existing from an early age, to compete on equal

terms with his normal fellows, or to manage himself or his affairs with

ordinary prudence. American students usually distinguish three grades of

mental defect: Idiots are those who are unable to take care of

themselves, even to the extent of guarding against common physical

dangers or satisfying physical needs. Their mentality does not progress

beyond that of a normal two-year-old child. Imbeciles can care for

themselves after a fashion, but are unable to earn their living. Their

mental ages range from three to seven years, inclusive. Morons, who

correspond to the common acceptation of the term feeble-minded, "can

under proper direction become more or less self-supporting but they are

as a rule incapable of undertaking affairs which demand judgment or

involve unrestricted competition with normal individuals. Their

intelligence ranges with that of normal children from seven to twelve

years of age." There is necessarily a considerable borderline, but any

adult whose intelligence is beyond that of the normal twelve-year-old

child is usually considered to be not feeble-minded.

GAMETE (mate), a mature germ-cell; in animals an ovum or

spermatozoön.

GENETICS (origins), for a long time meant the study of

evolution by experimental breeding and was often synonomous with

Mendelism. It is gradually returning to its broader, original meaning of

the study of variation and heredity, that is, the origin of the

individual's traits. This broader meaning is preferable.

GERMINAL (sprig), due to something present in the germ-cell. A

trait is germinal when its basis is inherited,--as eye color,--and when

it develops with nothing more than the standard environment; remaining

relatively constant from one generation to another, except as influenced

by reproduction.

GERM-PLASM (sprig form), mature germ-cells and the living

material from which they are produced.

HÆMOPHILIA (blood love), an inability of the blood to clot. It

thus becomes impossible to stop the flow of blood from a cut, and one

who has inherited hæmophilia usually dies sooner or later from

hæmorrhage.

HEREDITY (heirship), is usually considered from the outside,

when it may properly be defined as organic resemblance based on descent,

or the correlation between relatives. But a better definition, based on

the results of genetics, looks at it as a mechanism, not as an external

appearance. From this point of view, heredity may be said to be "the

persistence of certain cell-constituents (in the germ-cells) through an

unending number of cell-divisions."

HETEROZYGOTE (different yolk), a zygotic individual which

contains both members of an allelomorphic pair.

HOMOZYGOTE (same yolk), an individual which contains only one

member of an allelomorphic pair, but contains that in duplicate, having

received it from both parents. A homozygous individual, having been

formed by the union of like gametes, in turn regularly produces gametes

of only one kind with respect to any given factor, thus giving rise to

offspring which are, in this regard, like the parents; in other words,

homozygotes regularly "breed true." An individual may be a homozygote

with respect to one factor and a heterozygote with respect to another.

HORMONES (chain), the secretions of various internal glands,

which are carried in the blood and have an important specific influence

on the growth and functioning of various parts of the body. Their exact

nature is not yet understood.

INBORN usually means germinal, as applied to a trait, and it is

so used in this book. Strictly speaking, however, any trait which

appears in a child at birth might be called inborn, and some writers,

particularly medical men, thus refer to traits acquired in prenatal

life. Because of this ambiguity the word should be carefully defined

when used, or avoided.

INHERENT (in stick), as used in this book, is synonymous with

germinal.

INDUCTION (in lead), a change brought about in the germ-plasm

with the effect of temporarily modifying the characters of an

individual produced from that germ-plasm; but not of changing in a

definite and permanent way any such germ-plasm and therefore any

individual inherited traits.

INNATE (inborn), synonymous with inborn.

LATENT (lie hidden), a term applied to traits or characters

whose factors exist in the germ-plasm of an individual, but which are

not visible in his body.

LAW, in natural science means a concise and comprehensive

description of an observed uniform sequence of events. It is thus quite

different from the law of jurists, who mean a rule laid down for the

guidance of an intelligent being, by an intelligent being having power

over him.

MENDELISM, a collection of laws of heredity (see Appendix D)

so-called after the discoverer of the first of them to become known;

also the analytical study of heredity with a view to learning the

constitution of the germ-cells of animals and plants.

MENDELIZE, to follow Mendel's laws of inheritance.

MORES (customs), the approved customs or unwritten laws of a

people; the conventions of society; popular usage or folk-ways which are

reputable.

MUTATION (change), has now two accepted meanings: (1) a

profound change in the germ-plasm of an organism such as will produce

numerous changes in its progeny; and (2) a discontinuous heritable

change in a Mendelian factor. It is used in the first sense by De Vries

and other "mutationists" and in the second sense by Morgan and other

Mendelists; confusion has arisen from failure to note the difference in

usage.

NORMAL CURVE, the curve of distribution of variations of

something whose variations are due to a multiplicity of causes acting

nearly equally in both directions. It is characterized by having more

individuals of a mediocre degree and progressively fewer above and below

this mode.

NUCLEUS (little nut), a central, highly-organized part of every

living cell, which seems to play a directive rôle in cell-development

and contains, among other things, the chromosomes.

PATENT (lie open), a term applied to traits which are

manifestly represented in the body as well as the germ-plasm of an

individual. The converse of "latent."

PROBABILITY CURVE, the same as normal curve. Also called a

Gaussian curve.

PROTOPLASM (first form), "the physical basis of life"; a

chemical compound or probably an emulsion of numerous compounds. It

contains proteins which differ slightly in many species of organism. It

contains carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, and various salts,

but is so complex as to defy exhaustive analysis.

PSYCHIATRY (soul healing), the study of diseases of the mind.

RECESSIVE (draw back), the converse of dominant; applied to one

of a pair of contrasted Mendelian characters which can not appear in the

presence of the other.

REGRESSION (back go), the average variation of one variable for

a unit variation of a correlated variable.

SEGREGATION (aside flock), (1) as used in eugenics means the

policy of isolating feeble-minded and other anti-social individuals from

the normal population into institutions, colonies, etc., where the two

sexes are kept apart. (2) The term is also used technically in genetics,

to refer to the discontinuity of the variation of characteristics

resulting from the independent distribution of factors before or at the

time of formation of the gametes.

SELECTION (apart pick), the choice (for perpetuation by

reproduction) from a mixed population, of the individuals possessing in

common a certain character or a certain degree of some character. Two

kinds of selection may be distinguished: (1) natural selection, in which

choice is made automatically by the failure to reproduce (through death

or some other cause) of the individuals who are not "fit" to pass the

tests of the environment (vitality, disease resistance, speed, success

in mating, or what not); and (2) artificial selection, in which the

choice is made consciously by man, as a livestock breeder.

SEX-LIMITED, a term applied to traits which differ in the two

sexes, because influenced by the hormones of the reproductive glands.

Example, the beard.

SEX-LINKED, a term applied to traits which are connected with

sex _accidentally_ and not physiologically in development. The current

explanation is that such traits happen to be in the same chromosome as

the determiner of maleness or femaleness, as the case may be.

Color-blindness is the classical example in man.

SEXUAL SELECTION, the conscious or unconscious preference by

individuals of one sex, or by that sex as a whole, for individuals of

the other sex who possess some particular attribute or attributes in a

degree above or below the average of their sex. If the deviation of the

chosen character is in the same direction (plus or minus) as in the

chooser, the mating is called assortative; if in one direction

independent of the characteristic of the chooser, it is called

preferential.

SOMA (body), the body as distinguished from the germ-plasm.

From this point of view every individual consists of only two

parts,--germ-plasm and soma or somatoplasm.

TRAIT, a term used by geneticists as a synonym of "character."

UNIT-CHARACTER, in Mendelian heredity a character or

alternative difference of any kind, which is apparently not capable of

subdivision in heredity, but is inherited as a whole, and which is

capable of becoming associated in new combinations with other

characters. The term is now going out of use, as it makes for clearer

thinking about heredity to fix the attention on the factors of the

germ-cells instead of on the characters of the adult.

VARIATION, a deviation in the size, shape, or other feature of

a character or trait, from the mean or average of that character in the

species.

VESTIGIAL (footstep), a term applied to a character which at

some time in the evolutionary history of the species possessed

importance, or functioned fully, but which has now lost its importance

or its original use, so that it remains a mere souvenir of the past, in

a degenerated condition. Example, the muscles which move a man's ears.

ZYGOTE (yolk), the fertilized egg-cell; the united cell formed

by the union of the ovum and spermatozoön after fertilization.

ZYMOTIC, caused by a microörganism,--a term applied to

diseases. Example, tuberculosis.

INDEX

A

Abderholden, E., 422

Acquired character, 437

Administrative aspects, 194

Adult mortality, 345

Afghans, 321

Africa, 290, 291

Agriculture, 307

Aguinaldo, E., 314

Aims of eugenics, 152

Alabama, 187, 202, 296

Alaska, 187

Albinism, 433

Alcohol, 44, 48, 49, 130

Alcoholism, 213, 302

Aleurone, 104

Allelomorphism, 437

Allelomorphs, 108, 427, 437

Alpine Type, 427

America, 432

American Breeders Assn., 154, 194

American Breeders Magazine, 154

American Prison Assn., 182

American Genetic Assn., 154, 277

American stock, 258, 424

Americans, 427, 428

American-Chinese Marriages, 313

Amherst College, 255, 266

Amoy, 315

Ancestral Inheritance Law, 112

Anglian, 426

Anglo-Saxon, 426

Anthropological Soc. of Denmark, 155

Apartment houses, 377

Appearance, 219, 221

Appropriate opportunity, 366

Arabs, 230, 280

Argentina, 326

Aristocracy, 362

Aristodemocracy, 362

Aristotle, 32

Arizona, 187

Arkansas, 241

Armenians, 299, 302, 427

Army, American, 83

Arnold, M., 394

Arsenic, 63

Art, 96

Asiatic immigration, 311

Asiatic Turkey, 299

Assortative mating, 126, 211

Athenians, 133

Atrophy of optic nerve, 433

Atwater, W. O., 422

Austria, 137, 155

Australian, 129

Australian marriages, 222

Automobile, effect of 377

B

Baby saving campaign, 408

Bachelors, tax on, 353

Back to the farm movement, 355

Backward children, 188

Bahama Islands, 203

Baker, O. E., 6

Baltzly, A., 327

Banker, H. J., 267, 245

Banns, 197

Barrington, A., 13

Batz, 207

Baur, E., 104

Bean and Mall, 285

Beans, Fig. 13.

Beeton, M., 144, 404, 408, 411

Beggars, 302

Belgium, 138, 155, 324

Bell, A. G., 144, 183, 226, 345, 347, 350, 402, 407, 411

Bentham, J., 165

Berlin, 140

Bermuda, 205

Bertholet, E., 57

Bertillon, J., 140

Besant, A., 269

Better babies movement, 155

Bezzola, D., 56

Billings, W. C., 313

Binet tests, 287

Biometric method, 31

Biometry, 437

Birth control, 269

Bisexual societies, 234

Bismarck, von, O. E. L., 422

Blakeslee, A. F., Figs. 2, 3, 13, 14

Blascoe, F., 282

Bleeders, 38

Blind, 156

Blindness, 32

Blücher, von G. L., 321

Blumer, J. C., 244

Boas, F., 41, 282, 283

Boer War, 321

Boer-Hottentot mulattoes, 300

Body-plasm, 27

Bohemians, 311, 427

Boston, Mass., 261, 182

Boveri, T., 27

Brachybioty, 409

Brachycephalic heads, 427

Brachydactyly, 433, 437, Fig. 17

Bradlaugh, C., 269

Brazil, 325

Breton race, 273

Bridges, C. B., 101

Brigham Young College, 219

British, 427

British Columbia, 305

British Indian immigration, 312

Bruce, H. A., 23

Bryn Mawr College, 240, 263

Burris, W. P., 97

C

Cæsar, J., 179, 207

Caffeine, 45

California, 172, 192

California University, 100

Cambridge graduates, 428

Cambridge, Mass., 261

Cape Cod, 206

Carnegie Institution of Washington, 154

Carnegie, Margaret Morrison, School, 278

Carpenter, E., 379

Carver, T. N., 305, 367

Castle, C. S., 243

Castle, W. E., 87, 100, 105, 108, 300, 419, 435, Fig. 20

Catlin, G., 130

Cattell, J. McK., 20, 21, 268, 269

Cavour, C. B., 19

Celibacy, 173

Celtic, 41

Celto-Slav Type, 427

Central Europe, 427

Ceylon, 129

Character, 219, 221, 437

Charm and taboo, 395

Chastity, 251, 386

Chicago, Ill., 182, 261

Chicks, 47

Child bearing, Effect of, 346

Child Labor, 368

Childless wives, 268

Child mortality, 403, 407

Children surviving per capita, 267

China, 20, 137, 274

Chinese, 315, 397, Fig. 5

Chinese immigration, 321

Chorea, Huntingdon's, 109, 433

Christianity, 171, 394

Chromosomes, 87, 431, 437

Church acquaintances, 234

Civic Club (Pittsburgh, Penn.), 371

Civil War, 268, 301, 321, 326, 402

Cleopatra, 207

Climate, 42

Cobb, M. V., 96

Co-education, 267, 383

Coefficient of correlation, 212

Coercive means, 184

Cold Spring Harbor, 100

Coldness, 251

Cole, L. J., 45, 51, 63, Fig. 7

Collateral inheritance, 404

College women, 241

Collins, G. N., 104

Colonial ancestry, 426

Colony plan, 188

Color line, 280

Color-blindness, 109, 433

Columbus, C., 132

Columbia, District of, 187

Columbus, Ohio, 261

Columbia University, 10, 41, 100, 278

Combemale, 44

Compulsory education, 369

Confederate Army, 323

Congenital, 438

Conklin, E. G., 435

Connecticut, 76, 128, 192, 261, 326

Connecticut Agricultural College, 82, Fig. 14

Consanguinity, 207

Conscription, 319

Continuity of germ-plasm, 29

Controlled association tests, 288

Cook, O. F., 356

Corn, Fig. 2

Cornell Medical College, 45

Correlation, 13, 212, 438

Cost of clothing, 274

Cost of domestic labor, 275

Cost of food, 274

Cost of medical attention, 275

Courtis, S. A., 77

Cousins, 202

Criminals, 158, 182, 192

Croatians, 427

Crum, Frederick S., 259

Cushing, H., 102

Cynical attitude, 249

Cytology, 438

D

Danes, 426

Dalmatians, 311

Dance acquaintances, 234

Dark family, 168

Darwin, C., 20, 21, 25, 68, 69, 117, 134, 147, 151, 174, 208, 214, 334

Darwinism, 214

Davenport, C. B., 66, 154, 159, 182, 202, 205, 208, 246, 338, 341, 342,

348, 349, 433, 435

Davies, Maria Thompson, 235

Deaf, 157

Deafness, 32, 154

Declaration of Independence, 75

Declining birth rate, 237, 256, 268, 400

Defective germ-plasm, 194

Defectives, 302

Definition of eugenics, 147, 152

Degenerate persons, 193

Delaware, 187

Delayed marriage, 217

Delinquents, 302

Demme, R., 56

Democracy, 360

Denmark, 137

Dependents, 302

Desirability of Restrictive Eugenics, 167

Destitute classes, 214

Determiners, 432, 438

Differences among men, 75

Diffloth, P., 222

Diseases, 38

Disease resistance, 402

Disposition, 219, 221

Distribution, 307

District of Columbia, 187

Divorce, 201

Dolichocephalic heads, 427

Doll, E. A., 421

Dominance, 438

Dominant, 433

Dress, 219, 221

Drinkwater, 342

Drosophila, 101

Drug fiends, 193

Drunkenness, 389

Dublin, L. I., 400

Dubois, P., 23, 24

DuBois, W. E. B., 295

Duncan, J. M., 247

Duncan, F. N., 102, Fig. 17

Dugdale, R. L., 159

Durant scholarship, 262

Dyer family, 206

Dynamic evolution, 421

Dynamic of manhood, 223

Dysgenic, definition of, 438

Dysgenic types, 176

E

Earle, E. L., 94

Early marriages, 247

Eastern Europe, 427

East, E. M., 104

East north central states, 358

East south central states, 358

Ebbinghaus tests, 288

Economic determinism, 365

Economic equality of sexes, 380

Economic status, 250

Economic standing of parents, 370

Edinburgh, 57

Education, 219, 221

Education, compulsory, 368

Education and race suicide, 253

Edwards, J., 161

Egypt, 206

Egyptian, 285, Fig. 6

Elderton, E. M., 10, 55, 57, 60, 122, 153, 413

Elderton, W. P., 124

Elevation of standards, 277

Ellis, H., 96, 224, 379

Ellis Island, 302, 303, 427

Emancipation of women, 364

Emerson, R. A., 104

Endogamy, 222, 438

England, 15, 16, 121, 122, 138, 237, 381, 427, 432

English, 259, 311, 321, 426, 427, 428

Epilepsy, 58, 79

Epileptics, 193, 302

Eskimo, 49, 127

Estabrook, A. H., 143, 159, 168

Equalitarianism, 362

Equality, 229

Equality of opportunity, 366

Equal pay for equal work, 380

Essence of Mendelism, 429

Eugenic aspect of specific reforms, 352

Eugenic laws, 191

Eugenic marriages, 352

Eugenics and euthenics, 438

Eugenics Education Society, 153

Eugenics movement, 147

Eugenics registry, 350

Eugenics Record Office, 153, 194, 202, 348, 349, 436

Eugenics Review, 436

Eugenics and social welfare, Bulletin, 435

Euthenics, 155, 415, 416, 417, 438

Euthenics, eugenics and, 402

Eye, 59

Evolution, 438

Exogamy, 22, 438

F

Facial attractiveness, 215

Fairchild, H. P., 308

Family alignment, 229

Faraday, M., 334

Farrabee, W. C., 132

Fecundal selection, 137

Feebly inhibited, 182

Feeble minded, 157, 172, 302

Feeble-mindedness, 71, 176

Féré, C. S., 44

Fernandez brothers, 314

Ferguson, G. O., Jr., 287, 288

Fertility, relative, 247

Filipinos, 315

Financial aspect, 173

Financial success, 219

Finger prints, Fig. 25

Finger tip, Figs. 21, 22

Finns, 299, 302, 311

Fishberg, M., 126

Florida, 187

Foot, Egyptian, Fig. 6

Foreign-born, 238

Formal social functions, 236

Foster, M., 29

France, 138, 155, 206, 237

Franco-Prussian war, 321

Franklin, B., 230

Frederick the Great, 19

Fredericksburg, Va., 288

Freiburg, University, of, 125

French-Canadians, 259

French revolution, 18

Freud, S., 213

G

Gallichan, W., 252

Galton, Eugenics Laboratory, 153, 349

Galton, F., V, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 89, 90, 95, 99, 110, 111,

112, 113, 147, 148, 151, 152, 162, 222, 228, 230, 247, 342, 435

Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics, 269, 436

Galton-Pearson law, 113, 114

Gamete, 439

Garibaldi, G., 19

Garrison, W. L., 295, 296

Genealogical Record Office, 402, 405, 407, 409, 411, 412

Genealogy and eugenics, 329, 439

Genesis, 64

Genetics, 340, 439

Genius, hereditary, 151

George, F. O., 234

Georgia, 187

Geographical distribution, 261

German, 35, 259, 280, 311

German society for race hygiene, 163

Germany, 20, 137, 155, 299, 360

Germinal, 439

Germ-plasm, 25, 429, 440

Ghetto, 305

Gifted families, 213

Gillette, J. M., 356, 358, 359

Gilman, C. P., 378

Gilmore, C. F., 136, 216, 227

Gini, C., 344, 346

Giotto, 342

Gochuico, Ricardo, 315

Goddard, H. H., 71, 105, 108, 160, 176, 188

Gonorrhea, 63

Goodrich, M. T., 333

Goring, C., 124, 214

Grant, Madison, 301, 420

Grant, U. S., 374

Great Britain, 130, 232

Great race, 426

Great war, ix, 298, 327

Greek idea of eugenics, 150

Greek slaves, 284

Greeks, 299, 302, 321, 427

Greenwood lake, 233

Growth of eugenics, 147

Gruber von, and Rubin, 204

Guatemala Indians, 356

Guinea pigs, 45, 419

Gulick, J. T., 134

Gulick, L. H., 223

Gulick, S. L., 311, 313

Gustavus Adolphus, 19

Guyer, M. F., 194, 435

H

Habitual criminal, 194

Hair, white blaze in, 433

Haiti, 284, 289

Hall, G. S., 225

Hall of Fame, 17, 19

Hamilton, A. E., 278, 433, 435

Hankins, F. H., 237

Hanks Family, 333

Hap, L., 314

Hapaa, 131

Harrison, Mrs. E. H., 154

Harris, J. A., 100, 211, 404

Hart, H. H., 186

Hartford, Conn., 261

Harvard University, 87, 245, 246, 266

Health, 219, 221

Heape, W., 419

Hebrews, 41, 302

Hebrews, East European, 299

Hebrews, Russian, 302

Heller, L. L. 64

Helsingfors, 54

Hemophilia, 38, 40, 433

Hereditary genius, 16, 151

Hereditary, 440

Heredity, laws of, 99

Heredity, talent and genius, 151

Heron, D., 14, 15, 140, 153

Herzegovinians, 311

Heterozygote, 440

Heterozygous, 427, 433

Hewes, A., 240

Hibbs, H. H., Jr., 411

Hickory Family, 168

Higher education, 276

Hill folk, 168

Hill, J. A., 268

Hindus, 305

Hitchcock, C. H., 333

Hodge, 44

Hoffman, F. L., 128, 259

Holland, 137, 143, 155

Hollingworth, H. L., 342

Home acquaintances, 234

Homo sapiens, 300

Homozygote, 440

Homozygous, 427

Hooker, J., 68

Hopetown, 203

Hormones, 440

Horsley, V., 55

Housekeeping, 219, 221

Housing, 376

Howard, A., 104

Howard, G., 104

Howard University, 388

Hrdlicka, A., 285, 424, 426, 427, 428

Huguenots, 424, 427

Humanistic religion, 396

Humanitarian aspect, 171

Hungary, 155, 302

Hunter, W., 69

Huntington, E., 42

Huntington's Chorea, 180

Huxley, J. L., 3

Hyde Family, 346, 411

I

Idiots, 188, 302

Illegitimacy, 325

Illegitimate children, 208, 386

Illinois, 172, 208

Illinois, University of, 244

Ilocano, 315

Imbeciles, 188

Immigration, 298

Immigration Commission, 304, 310

Immortality, 29

Improvement of sexual selection, 211

Inborn, definition of, 440

Inborn characters, 32

Income Tax, 353

Increasing the marriage rate of the superior, 237

Indiana, 172, 179, 208

Indian, American, 49, 130

Individualism, 253

Induction, 440

Infant mortality, 121, 413

Infant mortality movement, 414

Infusorian, 26

Inherent, 440

Inheritance of mental capacities, 84