Jamaica constitute a majority of those engaged in the trades and professions. Sir Sidney Olivier considers that this class of mixed race is indispensable to any West Indian community, because it saves the community from the cleavage between white and black, and helps to form an organic whole. Quatrefages believed that the half-breed of the negro and European, when placed under normal conditions, justifies the words of the old traveller, Thevenot: "The mulatto can do all that the white man can do; his intelligence is equal to ours." If the mulatto is not superior in fertility, the rapidly declining birth-rate of the white nations may soon give him this significant advantage.

It is not surprising that racial miscegenation often produces an inferior population. The withholding of social and legal sanction from inter-racial marriages tends to limit unions to the lower classes, the offspring of which are like the parents. But the results are likely to be advantageous if the crossing occurs under favorable conditions. "The Ainos of Japan, who are vanishing by amalgamation, are a very different and more primitive type than the Japanese, and both appear to be benefited by the process of absorption. The Portuguese and the Dutch have been intermarrying for several centuries in farther India to the advantage of both races, as is true of the Russians with the older natives of Siberia. The mixture of Arabs and the North Africans has produced the Moors; many crossings of the Turks, the mixture of the Spaniards and Indians in South America and Mexico, especially in Chile, which have resulted in NeoIndian and Neo-Aryan types, show how favorably the crossing of races may act if differences are not great and if both sexes of both races marry with each other instead of only the men of one with the women of the other." In the province of Saint Paul, Brazil, Portuguese and inhabitants of the Azores have intermarried with the native Gayanazes and Carijos. From the first, unions were regularly contracted among them, and the offspring were accepted as the equals of the pure whites. From these unions has sprung a race as noted for remarkable moral development as for intellectual power and for strength, beauty, and courage.

Crossing was accomplished under normal conditions in Saint Paul because of favorable social sentiment; approximately normal conditions prevailed at Pitcairn, because of geographical isolation. The Paulists appear to be equal, if not superior, to the most advanced of the parent stocks, while few will deny that the Pitcairn Islanders are superior to their Tahitian mothers and their English fathers.

While race blending is not everywhere desirable, yet the crossing of distinct races, especially when it occurs with social sanction, often produces a superior type; certainly such crossing as has occurred tends to prove absurd the conclusion that the dilution of the blood of the so-called higher races by that of the so-called lower races will either set the species on the highway to extinction, or cause a relapse into barbarism.

21. RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN MENTAL TRAITS1

By R. S. WOODWORTH

One of the most agreeable and satisfying experiences afforded by intellectual pursuits comes from the discovery of a clean-cut distinction between things which are superficially much alike. The esthetic value of such distinctions may even outweigh their intellectual value and lead to sharp lines and antitheses where the only difference that exists is one of degree. A favorite opportunity for this form of intellectual exercise and indulgence is afforded by the observation of groups of men. The type of man composing each group-that is what we should like to find; and we hear much of the "typical" scientist, the typical business man, the typical Englishman or Frenchman, the typical southerner, the typical Bostonian. The type of any group stands as a sort of ideal within the group, and, more or less caricatured, as the butt of the wit of other groups. There is one peculiar fact about these types: you may have to search long for an individual who can be taken as a fair example. And when you have at last found the typical individual, you may be led to ask by what right he stands as the type of the group, if he is a rarity amidst it.

If we would scientifically determine the facts regarding a group of men, we should, no doubt, proceed to examine all the individuals in the group, or at least a fair and honest representation of them. The first fact that meets us when we proceed in this way is that the individuals differ from each other, so that no one can really be selected as representing the whole number. We do find, indeed, when we measure the stature or any other bodily fact, or when we test any native mental capacity, that the members of a natural group are disposed about an average, many of them lying near the average, and few lying far above or far below it; and we thus have the average as a scientific fact regarding the group. But the average does not generally coincide with the type, as previously conceived, nor do the averages of different groups differ so much as the so-called types differ. Moreover, the average is itself very inadequate, since it does not indicate the amount of variation that exists within the group and this is one of the most important facts to be borne in mind in understanding any collection of individuals. It is especially impor

From address of the vice-president and chairman of Section H-Anthropology and Psychology-of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston, 1909. Science, pages 171-186, Feb. 4, 1910.

tant in comparing different groups of men, since the range of variation within either group is usually much greater than the difference between the averages of the groups. The groups overlap to such an extent that the majority of the individuals composing either group might perfectly well belong to the other.

No doubt statements like this will be readily accepted as far as concerns the different nations belonging to the same race. One could not seriously doubt that the nations of Europe, though they might differ slightly on the average, would so much overlap one another that, except for language and superficial mannerisms, the great majority of the members of one nation might be exchanged with a majority from another nation without altering the characteristics of either. But when we extend our view to all the peoples of the earth, the case would at first appear quite changed. Certainly whites and negroes do not overlap, to any extent, in color of skin, nor negroes and Chinamen in kinkiness of hair, nor Indians and Pygmies in stature. Such specialization of traits is, however, the exception. Whites and negroes, though differing markedly in complexion and hair, overlap very extensively in almost every other trait, as, for example, in stature. Even in brain weight, which would seem a trait of great importance in relation to intelligence and civilization, the overlapping is much more impressive than the difference; since while the brain of negroes averages perhaps two ounces lighter than the brain of Europeans, the range of variation within either race amounts to twenty-five ounces.

Our inveterate love for types and sharp distinctions is apt to stay with us even after we have become scientific, and vitiate our use of statistics to such an extent that the average becomes a stumbling-block rather than an aid to knowledge. We desire, for example, to compare the brain weights of whites and of negroes. We weigh the brains of a sufficient number of each race-or let us at least assume the number to be sufficient. When our measurements are all obtained and spread before us, they convey to the unaided eye no clear idea of a racial difference, so much do they overlap. If they should become jumbled together, we should never be able to separate the negroes from the whites by aid of brain weight. But now we cast up the average of each group, and find them to differ; and though the difference is small, we straightway seize on it as the important result, and announce that the negro has a smaller brain than the white. We go a step further, and class the white as a large-brained race, the negro as a small-brained. Such transforming of differences of degree into differences of kind, and making antitheses between overlapping groups, partakes not a little of the ludicrous. . .

...

All in all, the discovery of true inherent differences between races and peoples is an intricate task, and if we now turn to the psychologist

to conduct an examination of different groups, and to inform us regarding their mental differences, we must not allow him to present a hasty conclusion. His tests must be varied and thorough before we can accept his results as a serious contribution to this difficult subject. The psychologist may as well admit at once that he has little to offer; for, though the "psychology of peoples' has become a familiar phrase, and though books have been written on the subject, actual experimental work has so far been very limited in quantity. . .

First, as to the senses. The point of special interest here is as to whether the statements of many travelers ascribing to the "savage" extraordinary powers of vision, hearing and smell, can be substantiated by exact tests. The common opinion, based on such reports, is, or has been, that savages are gifted with sensory powers quite beyond anything of which the European is capable; though Spencer explains that this is a cause of inferiority rather than the reverse, because the savage is thus led to rely wholly on his keen senses, and to devote his whole attention to sense impressions, to the neglect and atrophy of his intellectual powers. Ranke, however, on testing natives of Brazil, a race notable for its feats of vision, found that their ability to discern the position of a letter or similar character at a distance, though good, was not remarkable, but fell within the range of European powers. The steppe-dwelling Kalmuks, also renowned for distant vision, being able to detect the dust of a herd of cattle at a greater distance with the naked eye than a European could with a telescope, have also been examined; and their acuity was indeed found to be very high, averaging considerably above that of Europeans; yet only one or two out of the forty individuals tested exceeded the European record, while the great majority fell within the range of good European eyes. Much the same result has been obtained from Arabs, Egyptians and quite a variety of peoples. Among the most reliable results are those of Rivers on a wholly unselected Papuan population. He found no very exceptional individual among 115 tested, yet the average was somewhat better than that of Europeans. I had myself, through the kindness of Dr. McGee, the opportunity of testing individuals from quite a variety of races at the St. Louis Fair in 1904, and my results agree closely with those already cited, though I did not find any cases of very exceptional powers among about 300 individuals. There were a number who exceeded the best of the 200 whites whom I also tested under the same conditions, but none who exceeded or equaled the record of a few individuals who have been found in the German army. Indians and Filipinos ranked highest, averaging about 10 per cent better than whites, when all individuals of really defective vision were excluded. The amount of overlapping is indicated by stating that 65-75 per cent of Indians and Filipinos exceeded the average for whites. It did not seem

possible, however, to assert anything like a correspondence between eyesight and the degree of primitiveness or backwardness of a people; since, for instance, the Negritos of the Philippine Islands, though much more primitive than the Malayan Filipinos in their mode of life, and, indeed, the most primitive group so far tested, were inferior to the Filipinos, and, in fact, as far as could be judged from the small number examined, no whit superior to whites. Nor does it seem possible, from results hitherto reported, to believe in a close correspondence between keen sight and dark skin, though it is true that pigment is important in several ways to the eye, and that therefore, as Rivers has suggested, the amount of pigmentation might be a factor in vision. But it does not seem to be specially the darkest races that show the keenest vision. We may perhaps conclude that eyesight is a function which varies somewhat in efficiency with difference of race, though with much overlapping. No doubt, however, the results as they stand need some qualification. On the one hand, inclusion of individuals with myopia and similar defects would lower the average of Europeans considerably more than that of most other races; so that the actual condition of eyesight differs more than the results show. On the other hand, it would not be fair to include nearsighted individuals, if what we wish to discover is native differences between peoples; for the different prevalence of myopia is certainly due to the differing uses to which the eye is put. And this matter of use may have considerable influence on the individuals not classed as near-sighted, and so admitted to the comparison. Rivers has made an observation in connection with the test for eyesight, which I am able to confirm, and which is perhaps of much importance. He found that when the letter or character used in his test, the position of which had to be recognized at the greatest possible distance, was removed from him beyond the distance at which he felt that he could judge it, he could still guess it right nearly every time, though without confidence. By such guessing, one's record in this test can be bettered considerably; and careful study enables one to see the slight and blurred indications of position which form the basis of the guessing. Now it may well be that the occupations of civilized life breed a habit of depending on clear vision, whereas the life of those who must frequently recognize objects at a great distance breeds reliance on slight indications, and so creates a favorable attitude for the test of eyesight. When this possibility is taken in connection with the deterioration of many European eyes from abuse, and in connection with the observed overlapping of all groups tested, the conclusion is not improbable that, after all, the races are essentially equal in keenness of vision. Even if small differences do exist, it is fairly certain that the wonderful feats of distant vision ascribed to savages are due to practice in interpreting slight indications of familiar objects. Both Rivers and Ranke, on testing