TABLE XIX.
-------------------------------------------------
Parentage.    | No. of  |No. dying |
(Genealogies.) |Children.|under 20. |Per cent.
-------------------------------------------------
First cousins     |   672   |   113    |  16.7
Other cousins     |  1417   |   211    |  14.9
Ch. of 1st cousins|   825   |   103    |  12.5
Non-consanguineous|  3184   |   370    |  11.6
-------------------------------------------------
(Correspondence.)
-------------------------------------------------
First cousins     |   759   |    88    |  11.6
Other marriages   |   829   |    71    |   8.6
-------------------------------------------------

[Footnote 49:  Feer, Der Einfluss der Blutsverwandschaft der Eltern auf die Kinder, p. 12, note.]

[Footnote 50:  Ibid.]

If the figures in Table XIX are to be accepted at their face value, and there seems to be no good reason for not doing so in the genealogical cases at least, the youthful death-rate among the offspring of consanguineous marriages far exceeds the average.  The average in the correspondence cases is undoubtedly too low, as many correspondents failed to report the deaths.  From the fact that a comparatively large percentage of these were reported as defective, we should expect a higher death-rate than among the unbiased genealogical cases.

Dr. Bemiss found a very high death-rate among the children of consanguineous marriage, due partly to the fact that his cases were reported by physicians.  He reports that of the offspring of marriages between first cousins and nearer relatives, 23 per cent “died young;” of the offspring of more remote consanguineous marriages, 16 per cent; and of non-related marriages 16 per cent.  There is, therefore, a strong indication of lowered vitality as a result of consanguineous marriage.

A determination of even the approximate percentage of degenerate offspring resulting from marriages of consanguinity by direct inquiry is exceedingly difficult.  The average human mind is so constituted as to exaggerate unconsciously the unusual in its experience.  Herein lies the fallacy in the work of Dr. Bemiss.  His material was “furnished exclusively by reputable physicians in various states,” and of the 3942 children of consanguineous marriages in the cases thus furnished him, 1134 or 28.8 per cent were in some way “defective.”  Of these, 145 were deaf and dumb, 85 blind, 308 idiotic, 38 insane, 60 epileptic, 300 scrofulous and 98 deformed.  It is evident that a physician in reporting such data to a physician would naturally give cases in which something pathological existed.  Even if there were no conscious bias, such cases would be the ones with which a physician would be most likely to come in contact.  Dr. Bemiss himself recognized the possibility of this bias.  To quote him: