method that yousuggest is not the best possible, for it would require the space of an extra half line, if not a whole line, in the printing (see' fig.); neither does it contain all that is wanted, viz. number of brothers and sisters. Moreover it rather mars the simplicity of the notation. Lastly, there would be unnecessary repetition. After numerous trials it seems thus far (subject to discussion) best to leave all this to a separate paragraph in smaller type. In this nothing need appear that did not relate to an entry in the pedigree. Suppose it is a case of fat bro, son,' in which only the son is noteworthy. The paragraph would always contain entries corresponding to those below. In these the brackets mean "self, brothers and sisters"; and the first numeral is the number in it of males, the second that of females, so the "self" falls into the first or last of the, numbers according to the sex.
fa (5, 3);' me (2, 2); self (3, 1); sons and daus (2, 4).
J42 John; bro, Edward; and so on for every non-noteworthy kinship in the pedigree.
Of course, this paragraph may contain fa fa ( ); me fa ( ); fa bro, sons and dazes ( ); fa bron+,sons and daus ( ), and the like, so far as data exist and it seems useful in the case in question to insert them.
Many complexities due to double marriages or to intermarriages could be made clear in the footnote, the object of which should be confined to explaining the text, not to bothering out all 'relationships. In brief the syllables with suffixes will particularise the persons concerned, the footnote will tell particulars concerning them which the text does not.
I hope this is clear enough for you to experiment with and perhaps improve on? Please try, and report.
I have been in correspondence with Mr Hartog about the destination of the Report to the Senate. I trust that it will be handed to you to send' on to-Biometrika. A very brief account of it-its title and an explanatory sentence-will be wanted for the Report' of the Committee to the Senate, I suppose; but you will be advised by Hartog. I am very sorry about Miss Elderton's illness. I hope it is nothing bad.
Very faithfully, FRANCIS GALTON. HOTEL D'ANGLETERRE, BIARRITZ. December 23, 1905.
DEAR SCHUSTER, Since writing yesterday I have written out the enclosed as a full example. The complete set of names is more of a luxury than a necessity. Without them, the entries could go consecutively, thus
fal + fa, bros + fa, sis (3, iii); self + bros + sis (5, iii); sons + daus (1, 0); fa, bro2 sons fa, bro2 daus (5, i) ; etc.
In this way they would take little room, especially if printed smaller than the text. The fault in this very concise form is that it fails to -identify by name the non-noteworthy links. The rated order of birth may. not be correct; one wants the Christian names as well, for certain identification. This difficulty could I am sure be got over. How would it do in the following to write the third and fifth lines thus:
self + bros + sis (5, iii) 2. Charles,
fa, bro2 sons +fa, bro2 daus (5, i) 1. Constantine,
and so on, giving only the names of the persons who come directly or indirectly in the genealogical account.
It deserves a great deal of care to arrange once for all these and similar matters, to ensure uniformity, and to avoid costly printers' corrections hereafter. You would do well to prepare two or three typical genealogies for consideration. I would send them to Howard Collins whose, advice on such matters is probably the very best to be had, and who is always ready to help me. Very faithfully, FRANCIS GALTON.