Recognized HTML document


ties, so all were disregarded that contained fewer than four individuals. In (2) and (3) I could not with safety use large Fraternities. In (4) the method of selection was, as we have seen, quite indifferent. This makes the accordance of the . results derived from the Special data all the more gratifying. Those from the R.F.F. data accord less well together. The R.F.F. measures are not sufficiently exact for use in these delicate calculations. Their results, being compounded of b and of their tendency to deviate from exactness, are necessarily too -high, and should be discarded. I gather from all this that we may safely consider the value of b to be less than 1.06, and that allowing for some want of precision in the Special data, the very convenient value of 1.00 inch may reasonably be adopted.

Trustworthiness of the Constants.-There is difficulty in correcting the results obtained from the R.F.F. data, though we can make some estimate of their general inaccuracy as compared with the Special data. The reason of the difficulty is that the inaccuracy cannot be ascribed to an uncertainty of equal f amount in every entry, such as might be due to a doubt of " shoes off " or "shoes on." If it were so, the Prob. Error of a single value of the R.F.F. would be greater than that of one of the Specials, whereas it proves to be the same. It is likely that the inaccuracy is a compound first of the uncertainty above mentioned, whose effect would be to increase the value of the Prob. Error,