01 / Best specimens
A proposition. Different explanations.
Different directions for action.
Francis Galton · 1904
“The aim of eugenics is to represent each class or sect by its best specimens; that done, to leave them to work out their common civilization in their own way.”
Opening argument, after the animal fable. S01 ↗
He retains different types and names desirable qualities. The questions concern their measurement, inheritance, and use in directing reproduction. G01-03 ↗
London · 16 May 1904. Galton’s paper was read to the Sociological Society; Pearson chaired. S03 ↗
The 1905 proceedings separate discussion from written communications. Shaw’s contribution is written; his presence is not established. S02 ↗
Selected contributors from the supplied seed set. These are paraphrases of contemporary claims, not established facts about people.
Paper & reply
Recorded discussion
Written communications
Paper & reply
Paper read at meeting, independently corroborated by offprint catalogue.
G01-01 · definition
The address distinguishes improving inborn qualities from their development.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
G01-02 · normative bridge
The animal fable is an analogy, not observational evidence.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
G01-03 · criterion
Normative qualities are named; measurement scales and weights are not supplied.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
G01-04 · sampling rule
The case definition precedes the proposed database.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
G01-05 · research and action timing
Restraint and public mobilization coexist. This seed combines propositions that may need further segmentation.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
Chair · discussion
Chair verified; published opening speech.
P01-01 · institutional method
This is the contributor’s account of scientific authority, not a demonstrated law of discovery.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
P01-02 · programmatic endorsement
No new equation is supplied in this contribution.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
Discussion
Reported discussion contributor.
W03-01 · alternative explanation
Disputing this hereditary inference is not a denial of heredity.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
W03-02 · critique of criterion
This objection remains separate from the contributor’s sterilization proposal.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
W03-03 · intervention
Criticism of selection criteria coexists with a reproductive intervention proposal.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
Discussion
Reported discussion contributor; remarks address Bateson’s position, not proof Bateson attended.
W02-01 · methodological claim
This is a philosophy of statistics asserted by the contributor.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
W02-02 · validation requirement
Broader validation is demanded without rejecting experiments or Mendelian inquiry.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
Discussion
Reported discussion contributor.
H01-01 · alternative explanation
This comparative claim is not a trial; no quantified intervention effect is established.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
Discussion
Reported discussion contributor; identity corroborated by later historical accounts.
V01-01 · alternative explanation
Population-pressure claims in this contribution are not verified here.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
V01-02 · record coverage objection
The disappearance of a surname is not the disappearance of descendants.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
V01-03 · intervention
The proposal retains the contributor’s historical concern with reproduction and future generations.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
Discussion
Reported discussion contributor.
H02-01 · action restraint
Uncertainty constrains immediate intervention.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
H02-02 · conditional intervention
Present restraint is not principled opposition to every future intervention.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
Discussion
Reported discussion contributor.
K01-01 · unit of analysis objection
The contributor’s allegations about another participant are not independently validated here.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
Written communication
Written contribution; physical attendance not established.
S01-01 · normative endorsement
This is a written communication, not a recorded spoken intervention.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
S01-02 · intervention
The proposal does not by itself establish compulsory mating.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
Written communication
Written contribution; physical attendance not established.
R02-01 · criterion critique
This written objection distinguishes an exemplar from a representative average.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
R02-02 · alternative explanation
The contributor also makes separate restrictive reproductive claims; this proposition cannot stand for the whole position.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
Written communication
Written contribution; physical attendance not established.
M03-01 · alternative explanation
This is a historically expressed causal claim in a written contribution, not modern proof.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
Written communication
Written contribution; physical attendance not established.
B01-01 · methodological challenge
The contribution supports the inquiry’s aims while contesting its method.
Source & coding ↗ Paraphrase · single research pass
25 illustrative seed records, curated in one research pass; some still combine propositions. Not a complete or independently adjudicated corpus. No frequency claims or rankings are drawn from this selection. Inspect the evidence boundary ↗
02 Remove the names →02 / Remove the names
The same propositions, arranged by mechanism. Names recede; publication roles and qualifications stay visible. This view does not establish that ideology is irrelevant.
Three pathways through the supplied propositions
Analogy; moral disagreement remains. Paper & reply G01-02 ↗Francis Galton
Clinical claim; no measured effect here. Discussion H01-01 ↗Robert Hutchison
Disputed inference; not a denial of heredity. Discussion W03-01 ↗H. G. Wells
Overlapping editorial groupings, not mutually exclusive categories or measured frequencies. Display paraphrases retain the supplied meaning; the source panel preserves the original seed wording and coding.
Claims about inborn qualities, inheritance, or the limits of hereditary inference.
Qualification The address distinguishes improving inborn qualities from their development.
Source & coding ↗Qualification No new equation is supplied in this contribution.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Disputing this hereditary inference is not a denial of heredity.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Broader validation is demanded without rejecting experiments or Mendelian inquiry.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Uncertainty constrains immediate intervention.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Present restraint is not principled opposition to every future intervention.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The contribution supports the inquiry’s aims while contesting its method.
Source & coding ↗Claims invoking nutrition, social advantage, economic position, education, or conditions of life.
Qualification Disputing this hereditary inference is not a denial of heredity.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Broader validation is demanded without rejecting experiments or Mendelian inquiry.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Population-pressure claims in this contribution are not verified here.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The proposal retains the contributor’s historical concern with reproduction and future generations.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This comparative claim is not a trial; no quantified intervention effect is established.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Present restraint is not principled opposition to every future intervention.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The contributor also makes separate restrictive reproductive claims; this proposition cannot stand for the whole position.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This is a historically expressed causal claim in a written contribution, not modern proof.
Source & coding ↗Claims about records, proxies, criteria, units, or methods of inquiry.
Qualification Normative qualities are named; measurement scales and weights are not supplied.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The case definition precedes the proposed database.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Disputing this hereditary inference is not a denial of heredity.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This objection remains separate from the contributor’s sterilization proposal.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This is a philosophy of statistics asserted by the contributor.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Broader validation is demanded without rejecting experiments or Mendelian inquiry.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The disappearance of a surname is not the disappearance of descendants.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This written objection distinguishes an exemplar from a representative average.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The contributor also makes separate restrictive reproductive claims; this proposition cannot stand for the whole position.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This is a historically expressed causal claim in a written contribution, not modern proof.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The contribution supports the inquiry’s aims while contesting its method.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The contributor’s allegations about another participant are not independently validated here.
Source & coding ↗Claims concerning descent, reproductive selection, or reproductive arrangements.
Qualification The animal fable is an analogy, not observational evidence.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The case definition precedes the proposed database.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This objection remains separate from the contributor’s sterilization proposal.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Criticism of selection criteria coexists with a reproductive intervention proposal.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The disappearance of a surname is not the disappearance of descendants.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The proposal retains the contributor’s historical concern with reproduction and future generations.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This is a written communication, not a recorded spoken intervention.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The proposal does not by itself establish compulsory mating.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Uncertainty constrains immediate intervention.
Source & coding ↗Qualifications concerning knowledge, inference, criteria, timing, or generalization. An explicit selection rule is not itself uncertainty.
Qualification The animal fable is an analogy, not observational evidence.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Restraint and public mobilization coexist. This seed combines propositions that may need further segmentation.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This is the contributor’s account of scientific authority, not a demonstrated law of discovery.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Disputing this hereditary inference is not a denial of heredity.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This objection remains separate from the contributor’s sterilization proposal.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This is a philosophy of statistics asserted by the contributor.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Broader validation is demanded without rejecting experiments or Mendelian inquiry.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Population-pressure claims in this contribution are not verified here.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The disappearance of a surname is not the disappearance of descendants.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The proposal does not by itself establish compulsory mating.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This comparative claim is not a trial; no quantified intervention effect is established.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Uncertainty constrains immediate intervention.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Present restraint is not principled opposition to every future intervention.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This written objection distinguishes an exemplar from a representative average.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The contributor also makes separate restrictive reproductive claims; this proposition cannot stand for the whole position.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This is a historically expressed causal claim in a written contribution, not modern proof.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The contribution supports the inquiry’s aims while contesting its method.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The contributor’s allegations about another participant are not independently validated here.
Source & coding ↗Statements specifying desired qualities or proposing improved conditions or outcomes.
Qualification The address distinguishes improving inborn qualities from their development.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The animal fable is an analogy, not observational evidence.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Normative qualities are named; measurement scales and weights are not supplied.
Source & coding ↗Qualification No new equation is supplied in this contribution.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Population-pressure claims in this contribution are not verified here.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The proposal retains the contributor’s historical concern with reproduction and future generations.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This is a written communication, not a recorded spoken intervention.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This comparative claim is not a trial; no quantified intervention effect is established.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This written objection distinguishes an exemplar from a representative average.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This is a historically expressed causal claim in a written contribution, not modern proof.
Source & coding ↗Proposals to act, to limit action, or to defer it; inquiry is distinguished from implementation in the original fields.
Qualification Restraint and public mobilization coexist. This seed combines propositions that may need further segmentation.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This objection remains separate from the contributor’s sterilization proposal.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Criticism of selection criteria coexists with a reproductive intervention proposal.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The proposal retains the contributor’s historical concern with reproduction and future generations.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This is a written communication, not a recorded spoken intervention.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The proposal does not by itself establish compulsory mating.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This comparative claim is not a trial; no quantified intervention effect is established.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Uncertainty constrains immediate intervention.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Present restraint is not principled opposition to every future intervention.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This is a historically expressed causal claim in a written contribution, not modern proof.
Source & coding ↗Claims explicitly assigning or disputing who defines, guides, or authorizes a program.
Qualification The animal fable is an analogy, not observational evidence.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Normative qualities are named; measurement scales and weights are not supplied.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Restraint and public mobilization coexist. This seed combines propositions that may need further segmentation.
Source & coding ↗Qualification This is the contributor’s account of scientific authority, not a demonstrated law of discovery.
Source & coding ↗Qualification No new equation is supplied in this contribution.
Source & coding ↗Qualification The proposal does not by itself establish compulsory mating.
Source & coding ↗Qualification Present restraint is not principled opposition to every future intervention.
Source & coding ↗03 / Build the representation
The numerical material comes from Galton’s 1901 lecture, cited in the 1904 paper. It joins theoretical classes, a transformed social comparison, and a stipulated descent model. S01 ↗ S04 ↗
01 / Source
Historical source · transcribedNormal-probability classes expressed per 10,000.
Nature, p. 660Galton’s published Booth-derived rates, approximated and regrouped.
Nature, pp. 660–661Expected descendant classes under stipulated conditions.
Nature, p. 661The packet contains one-analyst transcriptions, not original scans or person-level observations. Booth’s upstream table and the East-London-to-all-London calculation remain unreconstructed. S04 ↗ S31 ↗
02 / Grouping
Originally printed + newly reproducedTable I divides a theoretical normal distribution in units of its probable error: q = 0.6744897502σ. Every rounded count reproduces. This does not test the distribution of civic worth.
Table I · probability area → count per 10,000
| Class | Printed | Reproduced, rounded |
|---|---|---|
| v and below | 35 | 35 |
| u | 180 | 180 |
| t | 672 | 672 |
| s | 1,613 | 1,613 |
| r | 2,500 | 2,500 |
| R | 2,500 | 2,500 |
| S | 1,613 | 1,613 |
| T | 672 | 672 |
| U | 180 | 180 |
| V and above | 35 | 35 |
10,000 × [Φ(upper boundary) − Φ(lower boundary)]
Boundaries: −∞, −4q, −3q, −2q, −q, 0, q, 2q, 3q, 4q, ∞. The unit is probable error, not one standard deviation. Reproduction CSV ↗
Galton warns against blindly trusting the normal law and adopts it here as an approximation. That qualification belongs alongside the working calculation. S04 · p. 659 ↗
03 / Approximation
Published transformations · reproducedTable II starts with Galton’s reported rates. He approximates them, then allocates the resulting groups to six comparable classes. The sequence below retains those operations.
| Group | Reported | Approximation | Then allocated |
|---|---|---|---|
| H | 97 | 100 | 100 → T+ |
| F + G | 200 | 200 | 150 → S + 50 → R |
| E | 382 | 400 | 200 → R + 200 → r |
| C + D | 227 | 200 | 50 → r + 150 → s |
| A + B | 94 | 100 | 100 → t− |
Select a group to trace its published allocation.
All groups contribute to the six-class comparison.
Summaries transcribed in the packet; the categories and evaluative language are historical objects of study.
Table II · reproduced comparison · per 1,000
Differences: +11, −11, 0, 0, −11, +11 per 1,000. Total-variation distance after construction: 0.022. Reproduction CSV ↗
This is descriptive agreement after approximation and regrouping. It is not a normality test or evidence for hereditary civic value. “Per 1,000” is a normalized rate, not a sample size. No hypothetical crosswalk is substituted here.
04 / Model
Historical assumptionsThe parental classifications are treated as corresponding scales.
Stationarity is stipulated, not inferred from these tables.
Normality supplies the form of the modeled distributions.
Equal fertility, an adult son and daughter per pair, and no account of death before marriage.
A modern literal implementation of the verbal procedure. Tail classes use finite probability medians. The source’s approximate spread is retained. S04 · p. 661 ↗ S05 · pp. 15–18 ↗
expectedᵢⱼ = Nᵢ × [Φ((bⱼ − ⅔mᵢ) / 0.75) − Φ((aⱼ − ⅔mᵢ) / 0.75)]
The continuous variance check gives (⅔)² + (¾)² = 145/144, not exactly 1. An exactly stationary spread in that continuous model would be √5/3 ≈ 0.745356. This hypothetical mathematical comparator does not replace 0.75 or explain every discrete-table residual.
Inspect the supplied Python ↗05 / Output
Reproduction with explicit limitsThe theoretical normal arithmetic reproduces.
The modern literal calculation differs after rounding, by at most 10 per cell.
Summing the transcribed Table III cells reproduces its printed descendant margins, totaling 10,004, against 10,000 in the parental row labels. This is not an exact cell-level reproduction of Galton’s procedure. Executed checks ↗
| Class | Parent row label | Descendant margin |
|---|---|---|
| v | 35 | 34 |
| u | 180 | 168 |
| t | 671 | 655 |
| s | 1614 | 1623 |
| r | 2500 | 2522 |
| R | 2500 | 2522 |
| S | 1614 | 1623 |
| T | 671 | 655 |
| U | 180 | 168 |
| V | 35 | 34 |
Printed blanks remain blank in the source CSV; they are treated as zero only for arithmetic sums. Source header and row-label readings are preserved separately and await independent transcription review.
(6 / 35) ÷ (3 / 2,500) ≈ 142.857
These are Table III’s modeled class-V offspring yields for class-V and class-R parents. The ratio belongs inside the stipulated model. It is not a measured comparison of human value. S04 ↗ S05 · Economy of Effort ↗
The arithmetic does not establish a validated scale of civic worth or the effects of a reproductive policy. The present residuals do not establish deception. Figure and Table IV verification remain outside the completed work.
04 / Where is “best”?
Galton supplies criteria. The next task is to inspect what those criteria specify, how they enter the records, and what the calculation can establish.
Open each distinction to inspect its evidential limit.
What is specified
Health, energy, ability, manliness, and courteous disposition. Different types and specialist aptitudes remain part of the proposal.
What is not operationalized
The supplied passage gives no common measurement scale or weights making these qualities commensurable, and no validation of their combined hereditary transmission.
What is specified
Specialists judge specialist aptitudes; the community can exclude representatives it considers undesirable.
What is not established
Naming the selectors does not validate a common criterion or settle the authority for using it to direct reproduction.
What is specified
At least three adult male children; thriving is defined partly through children’s superior positions compared with early classmates.
What is not established
The rule selects cases before analysis. It does not make social position a validated measure of inherited ability. Wells disputes that inference; Vickery questions records that follow only male names.
What is established
The Table I rounded counts reproduce. Table II’s explicit transformations produce the supplied six-class comparison.
What is not established
This correspondence does not operationalize a common civic-worth scale, establish hereditary causation, or validate the proposed reproductive application.
Robertson’s written response asks whether today’s preferred specimens are becoming the standard for future averages. That is a contemporary objection to the criterion, not a finding that all criteria are empty. R02-01 ↗
05 Description → direction →05 / Description → direction
The recorded proposals differ in their target, their authority, and the force of their qualifications. Inspect those connections one proposition at a time.
Conflicting ideals do not, in Galton’s view, prevent improvement within kinds.
Qualification: moral disagreement. The animal fable is an analogy, not observational evidence.
Source & coding ↗Hutchison argues that nutrition and environment offer a more promising intervention than stock-changing.
Qualification: comparative claim not trial. This comparative claim is not a trial; no quantified intervention effect is established.
Source & coding ↗Improving women’s conditions and education is proposed in connection with future generations.
Qualification: not stated. The proposal retains the contributor’s historical concern with reproduction and future generations.
Source & coding ↗Consciously selecting successes is rejected because individuality escapes a narrow list of desirable types.
Qualification: best selection not reliable. This objection remains separate from the contributor’s sterilization proposal.
Source & coding ↗Wells endorses sterilization of those described as failures.
Qualification: not stated. Criticism of selection criteria coexists with a reproductive intervention proposal.
Source & coding ↗Shaw proposes reproduction under public conditions outside the ordinary constraints of marriage, alongside existing marriage.
Qualification: outcomes distant. The proposal does not by itself establish compulsory mating.
Source & coding ↗Hobhouse argues knowledge is not adequate for regulating a powerful human passion.
Qualification: insufficient knowledge. Uncertainty constrains immediate intervention.
Source & coding ↗Hobhouse allows that sufficiently precise evidence could change ethical and legislative judgments.
Qualification: conditional on future knowledge. Present restraint is not principled opposition to every future intervention.
Source & coding ↗Selected seed records. Arrows connect the explanatory and action fields within each record; they do not assert causal effects or an exhaustive account of a contributor. Wells’s two propositions and Hobhouse’s two propositions remain separate.
Where the calculation reaches
Reported social categories.
Upstream Booth data still unverified.
Table I counts and Table II transformations reproduce.
Calculation checkedWhat makes a difference “better”? Criteria need validation.
Additional judgment & evidenceWho should act, and with what effects? Further justification is required.
Additional judgment & evidenceEstablished here. The publication distinguishes discussion from written contributions. The selected propositions contain different explanations, criteria, and proposed actions. Table I’s rounded arithmetic and Table II’s transformations reproduce. S02 ↗ Checks ↗
Conditional. Table III’s yields depend on stipulated conditions; the modern literal implementation remains an incomplete replication. A stated criterion still requires evidence appropriate to its intended use. S04 ↗
Not established. These records do not validate a civic-worth scale, estimate policy effects on later populations, establish motives, or demonstrate a universal mechanism of social convergence. The seed selection cannot establish frequencies in the full discussion. Packet · §§3–4 ↗
MRI–003 / Evidence boundary
This local prototype presents the supplied September 20, 2026 packet. The proposition is the analytical unit. Contributor roles follow the 1905 proceedings; argument content follows the alternate 1904 textual witness. Page alignment and independent review remain incomplete.
Historical sourcePublished claims, model conditions, and transcribed values.
New reproductionArithmetic executed by the supplied Python script.
Editorial displayOverlapping mechanism tags and concise paraphrases; original fields retained.
Not establishedClaims requiring evidence beyond this packet.
Original PDFs and scans are not bundled. Source links open the recorded witnesses; this prototype does not claim new source acquisition, independent transcription review, or complete corpus coding. Contemporary claims are attributed, not endorsed.
| Contributor | Publication role | Record location |
|---|---|---|
| Francis Galton | Paper & reply | Paper 43–51; reply begins 78 |
| Karl Pearson | Chair · discussion | Discussion 52–63; opening 52–53 |
| Dr. Maudsley | Discussion | Discussion 52–63 |
| Dr. Mercier | Discussion | Discussion 52–63 |
| Francis Warner | Discussion | Discussion 52–63 |
| W. F. R. Weldon | Discussion | Discussion 52–63 |
| Robert Hutchison | Discussion | Discussion 52–63 |
| H. G. Wells | Discussion | Discussion 52–63 |
| Alice Drysdale Vickery | Discussion | Discussion 52–63 |
| Benjamin Kidd | Discussion | Discussion 52–63 |
| Mr. Elderton | Discussion | Discussion 52–63 |
| L. T. Hobhouse | Discussion | Discussion 52–63 |
| W. Bateson | Written communication | Written Communications 64–78; starts 64 |
| C. S. Loch | Written communication | Written Communications 64–78 |
| W. Leslie Mackenzie | Written communication | Written Communications 64–78 |
| G. A. Archdall Reid | Written communication | Written Communications 64–78 |
| J. M. Robertson | Written communication | Written Communications 64–78; includes 72–74 |
| George Bernard Shaw | Written communication | Written Communications 64–78; 74–75 |
| Lady Welby | Written communication | Written Communications 64–78 |
Nineteen named publication contributors, not nineteen verified people in the room. Only contributors represented in the supplied seed appear in the proposition browser. S02 ↗
S01 · 1904
American Journal of Sociology 10(1), 1–25; DOI 10.1086/211280
Primary text in later web transcription. Text examined. Heading order differs from the 1905 proceedings; transcription has errors. Use for arguments, not an attendance list.
S02 · 1905
Paper 43–51; Discussion 52–63; Written Communications 64–78; reply begins 78
Digitized primary volume; catalogue and contents. Contents examined; distinguishes spoken discussion and written communications. No independent audience register inspected. Site currently labels the item In copyright; do not assume its scans are cleared for reuse.
S03 · 1904
GALTON/2/13/3/10; original at UCL Special Collections
Archival catalogue of primary document. Confirms May 16, 1904, School of Economics and Political Science, London University, Pearson in chair.
S04 · 1901
Nature 64, 659–665, October 31; lecture October 29
Primary facsimile. PDF text examined; page images 660 and 661 inspected. Tables I–III transcribed in this packet. Full descent-figure and Table IV image verification incomplete.
S05 · 1909
Chapter I; printed-image links and text, especially pp15–19
Later authorial reprint in digital transcription. Corroborates regression, medians and spread description. Do not silently treat reprint typography as identical to 1901.
S31 · 1880s–1900s
London School of Economics Library collection
Archival collection finding aid. Upstream source route only. Exact Booth edition/page and Galton’s East-London-to-all-London calculation remain unverified.