Table VII., in the next chapter, affords an interesting illustration of the character of the ignorance concerning the noteworthiness of kinsmen in distant degrees, showing that it is much lessened when they bear the same surname as their father, or even as the maiden surname of their mother. The argument is this: Table V. has already shown that me bros are, speaking roughly, as frequently noteworthy as fa bros—fifty-two of the one to forty-five of the other—so noteworthiness is so far an equal characteristic of the maternal and paternal lines, resembling in that respect nearly all the qualities that are transmitted purely through heredity. There ought, therefore, to be as many persons recorded as noteworthy in each of the four different kinds of great-grandparents. The same should be the case in each of the four kinds of great-uncles. But this is not so in either case. The noteworthy great-grandfathers, fa fa fa, who bear the same name as the subject are twice as numerous as the me fa fa who bear the maiden surname of the mother, and more than five times as numerous as either of the other two, the fa me fa and me me fa, whose surnames differ from both, unless it be through some accident, whether of a cross marriage or a chance similarity of names. It is just the same with the great-uncles. Now, the figures for great-grandfathers and great-uncles run so closely alike that they may fairly be grouped together, in order to obtain a more impressive whole—namely, two sorts of these kinsmen, bearing the same name as the Subject, contain between them 23 noteworthies, or 11.50 each; two sorts having the mother's maiden surname contain together 11 noteworthies, or 5.50 each; four sorts containing between them 7 names, or an average of 1.75 each. These figures are self-consistent, being each the sum of two practically equal constituents, and they are sufficiently numerous to be significant. The remarkable differences in their numbers, 11.50, 5.50, 1.75, when they ought to have been equal, has therefore to be accounted for, and the explanation given above seems both reasonable and sufficient.

Chapter X.—Conclusions.

The most casual glance at Table VII. leaves no doubt as to the rapid diminution in the frequency of noteworthiness as the distance of kinship to the F.R.S. increases, and it would presumably do the same to any other class of noteworthy persons.

In drawing more exact conclusions, the returns must be deemed to refer not to a group of 207 F.R.S., because they are not a fair sample of the whole body of 467, and, for reasons already given, they are too rich in noteworthiness for the one and too poor for the other. They will, therefore, be referred to the number that is the mean of these two limits—namely, to 337. I am aware of no obvious guidance to any better hypothesis.

The value of the expectation that noteworthiness would be found in any specified kinsman of an F.R.S., of whom nothing else is known, may be easily calculated from Table VII. on the two hypotheses already mentioned and justified: (1) That the figures should be taken to refer to 337, and not to 207; (2) that 1 per cent. of the generality are noteworthy—that is to say, there are 3.37 noteworthies to every 337 persons of the generality.

Thus, for the fathers of F.R.S., 81 are recorded as noteworthy, against 3.37 of fathers of the generality—that is, they are 24.1 times as numerous. For the first cousins of F.R.S. there are 99 noteworthies, divided amongst four kinds of male first-cousins, or 24.75 on an average to each kind, against the 3.37 of the generality—that is, they are 7.3 times as numerous.

On this principle the expectation of noteworthiness in a kinsman of an F.R.S. (or of other noteworthy person) is greater in the following proportion than in one who has no such kinsman: If he be a father, 24 times as great; if a brother, 31 times; if a grandfather, 12 times; if an uncle, 14 times; if a male first cousin, 7 times; if a great-great-grandfather on the paternal line, 3½ times.

The reader may work out results for himself on other hypotheses as to the percentage of noteworthiness among the generality. A considerably larger proportion would be noteworthy in the higher classes of society, but a far smaller one in the lower; it is to the bulk, say, to three-quarters of them, that the 1 per cent. estimate applies, the extreme variations from it tending to balance one another.

The figures on which the above calculations depend may each or all of them be changed to any reasonable amount, without shaking the truth of the great fact upon which Eugenics is based, that able fathers produce able children in a much larger proportion than the generality.

The parents of the 207 Fellows of the Royal Society occupy a wide variety of social positions. A list is given in the Appendix of the more or less noteworthy parents of those Fellows whose names occur in the list of sixty-six families. The parents are classified according to their pursuits. Many parents of the other Fellows in the 207 families were not noteworthy in the technical sense of the word, but were reported to be able. It was also often said in the replies that the general level of ability among the members of the family of the F.R.S. was high. Other parents were in no way remarkable, so the future Fellow was simply a “sport,” to use the language of horticulturists and breeders, in respect to his taste and ability. It is to be remembered that “sports” are transmissible by heredity, and have been, through careful selection, the origin of most of the valuable varieties of domesticated plants and animals. Sports have been conspicuous in the human race, especially in some individuals of the highest eminence in music, painting, and in art generally, but this is not the place to enter further into so large a subject. It has been treated at length by many writers, especially