[Footnote 41:  J.W.  Seaver, Anthropometric Table, 1889.]

[Footnote 42:  Delphine Hanna, Anthropometric Table 1891.]

[Footnote 43:  Where a large body of men are intensely interested in a competition, as over against a small body of women not seriously interested, any comparison of results is almost out of the question.  But the superior physical strength of man is, I believe, disputed in no quarter.  The Vassar records have been improved in succeeding years (the 100-yard dash was 13 seconds in 1904, the running high jump 4 feet 21/2 inches in 1905, the running broad jump 14 feet 61/2 inches in 1904), but Miss Harriet Isabel Ballantine, director of the Vassar College Gymnasium, writes me:  “I do not believe women can ever, no matter what the training, approach man in their physical achievements; and I see no reason why they should.”]

[Footnote 44:  Helen B. Thompson, The Mental Traits of Sex, p. 178.  “While it is improbable that all the difference of the sexes with regard to physical strength can be attributed to persistent difference in training, it is certain that a large part of the difference is explicable on this ground.  The great strength of savage women and the rapid increase in strength of civilized women wherever systematic physical training has been introduced both show the importance of this factor.”—­Ibid., p. 178.]

[Footnote 45:  “Physical and Mental Deviations from the Normal among Children in Public Elementary and Other Schools,” Report of the Sixty-fourth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1894. pp. 434ff.]

[Footnote 46:  A. Mitchell, “Some Statistics of Idiocy,” Edinburgh Medical Journal, Vol.  XI, p. 639.]

[Footnote 47:  “Koch’s Statistics of Insanity,” Journal of Mental Science, Vol.  XXVI, p. 435.]

[Footnote 48:  Mayr, Die Verbreitung der Blindheit, der Taubstummheit, des Bloedsinns und des Irrsinns in Baiern, p. 100.]

[Footnote 49:  Cf.  Campbell, loc. cit., pp. 146ff.]

[Footnote 50:  Ibid., pp. 132-40.]

[Footnote 51:  J.H.  Manley, “Harelip,” International Medical Journal, Vol.  II, pp. 209ff.]

[Footnote 52:  Communications of the Massachusetts Medical Society, Vol.  II, No. 3, p. 9.]

[Footnote 53:  Of the 3,956 individuals examined, 1,645 were males, and of these 47 (2.857 per cent.) presented supernumerary nipples.  Of the 3,956 individuals 2,311 were females, and of these 14 (0.605 per cent.) presented supernumerary mammae or nipples.  That is, this anomaly was found to occur more than four times as frequently in men as in women.—­J.  Mitchell Bruce, “On Supernumerary Nipples and Mammae,” Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, Vol.  XIII, p. 432.

Leichtenstern, however, whose investigations were of earlier date than those of Bruce, says that supernumerary mammae occur with about equal frequency in the two sexes.—­Leichtenstern, “Ueber das Vorkommen und die Bedeutung supernumeraerer Brueste und Brustwarzen,” Virchow’s Archiv fuer pathologische Anatomie, Vol.  LXXIII, p. 238.]