The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-06-05

only To white males. Wo may !tuH That In
absolute weight the huraan brain is exceed
I'd by those Of whales aud lnrposes, which
weigh, respectively from TO ponnds. and
by those Of elephants. which weigh 10
pounds or upward. The lowest OF these
figures Is higher thnp the greatest weight.
4 pounds ounces, claimed for non-hy-
drocephalic human braIn in no animal.
however. Other than whales. porpoises. aud
elephants Is the brain 40 heavy ms the
smallest human, which. "a we have said.
was that Of Bushwoman. and weighed
1919. A bulls brain weighed lis ounces,
lions only ounces. and that Of ali adult
gorilla but Is ounces. Tho deduction from
the last fact IL that tho largest ape brain Is
only half rs largo as tho smallest normal
human brain.
We como now to the relative weight OF
the brain. of It's weight that is To say. COM
pared with that OF tho whole body. Hero
we find the figures given by DR.. SMELL
differing somewhat from those put forward
by other comparative anatomsts. Accord
ing to GUAM, the average brain weight In
81 males. compared with the weight OF the
whole body. was as to $3.50; in ~ females
twas as to 3o4G. According to BIscHoFr.
the ratio was as to $500. DR.. SMELL makes
the average brain weight Of man, cont
pared with that OF his entire body. az to
1882. and that OF woman as to 81. O2g.
1t Is Interesting to compare tho relative
weight OF human brain with the relative
weight OF the brain In certain animals
OWEN estimated the weight OF an adult
male gorilla at 200 pounds. and as the brain
weighed Is ounces the ratio would be as
to 2l3 Dr. SMELL. however. cites speed
men OF another well-known species OF an
thropold ape. whose relative brain weight
was as to AZ. This IL almost as high ratio
rs we should perhaps assume for human be-
ings: Tor the relative weights OF the body
and brain vary greatly according to the con-
ditlon Of the body at death: and most OF
the cases on which the figures cited for hui
man beings arc based were Of persons dy-
Ing after moro or less prolonged disease.
GUAM concludes that in healthy individuals
dying suddenly from accident the ratio OF
brain weight to body weight Is probably
not to 49, but about to 49, and 1t ls sug-
gested that in comparing man with animals
In this respect tho last ratio should be
adopted. We have seen that the gibbon Il
to 49, comes near in relative brain weight
to man. But with this exception 1t may be
said that the human brain Is. relatively to
the body. heavier than that OF any animal
larger than cat in which the cerebrum Is
fssured. In tho case OF the field mouse.
indeed. the ratio OF brain weight to body
weight Is "a to 81: In that Of the shrew
mouse as l to 90: in that OF the sparrow as
to %. whilo In that OF the marmoset 1t Is
as high as to 90. We are to keep in view.
however that in small monkeys. as in
birds. the cerebrum is not ilssured.
As condition precedent to sociological
deductions from anatomical facts. there
should obviously be what MENDEI., for
other reasons. has demanded. viz. care
full determination Of the difference OF brain
weight among mentally sound individuals
belonging to the two distinct classes Of
those who are engaged In intellectual pur-
suits. and those whose vocations demand
great muscular activity. It Is provision
ally admitted. however. by the ANTAGONISTS
to be probable that. taking all exceptions
into account, the average weight OF 100
brains OF intelligent persons will always be
found greater than that OF an equal num-
Der OF the unintelligont. As women have
been. as sex. barred out for thousands Of
Nbe to explain on this score slight diff
ference from men in respect OF relative
brain weight. We observe that absolute
brain weight. considered as an indicator OF
mental capacity. Is entirely left out Of DR..
SMELLS calculations. He does not deem 1t
worth considering.
We have not yet touched on the specific
merit Of DR.. OTTo SMELLS article. It
has been generally assumed that rela-
tive brain weight. that is the weight of
n given animals brain compared with tho
weight OF Its whole body. is a trustworthy
measure OF Its intellectual ability. But DR..
SMELL points out what has been often over
looked In connection with this subject that
the brain has physical as we'll as intellectual
functions. He shows that the proportion
OF brain energy available for mental activ- !
ity does not vary directly according to rela-
tive brain weight. Why? Because the
amount OF force expended in connection
with certain vital functions. as, for instance,
the heart beat. respiration. and digestion. is
relatively greater in the case Of some small
animals or birds than 1t Is in man. Then
again. the outer corporal surface is rela-
lively greater in the case OF some small |
ings. Hence multiplication OF tho points
through which the physical functions OF the |
brain can DO drawn upon It is not. there |
fore. by n simple comparison Of relative |
brain weights. but by n complex calculation.
into which enter several elements. that the |
relative mental capacity of various animals. |
including man. can be estimated.
Without reproducing Dr. SMELLS alb
struse computations. which involve the use |
OF algebraic formulas and logarithms. we
will simply state the results Of his inquiries.
He finds that the amount OF brain force
available for mental purposes, or. in other
words. the psychica factor. varies in diff
fcrent animals. az follows: mans psy-
chical factor may be represented by the
figures 0.s74i1: woman's. then. will be
0.sG557. Their relative brain weight Is nearly
equal, being about rs to IS. compared with
+ lie weight of tho whole body. On tho other
hand. although the relative brain weight OF
tho gibbon ape Is nearly as large as In the
ease OF human beings being MS | to Al, the