Consanguineous Marriages in the American Population by George B. Louis Arner
page 40 of 115 (34%)
page 40 of 115 (34%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
[Footnote 40: Bemiss, _Report on Influence of Marriages of
Consanguinity_, pp. 420-423.] In the "Marriage of Near Kin," Mr. Huth gives a list of cases of consanguineous marriage collected by various persons from all over Europe.[41] He is free to say that they are worse than useless for the purpose for which they were collected, that of determining whether or not such marriages produce degeneracy, but in so far as the sex of the children is concerned they would not be biassed. TABLE XV. ----------------------------------------------------- |Sex of Children.| |----------------| Marriage. | Male.| Female. | Masculinity. ----------------------------------------------------- 1st cousins and nearer| 165 | 164 | 100 More distant cousins | 95 | 73 | 131 ----------------------------------------------------- [Footnote 41: Huth, _Marriage of Near Kin. Appendix._] The unusual ratios are of course due principally to a "run of luck," and this table only shows that if consanguinity is a determining factor in sex, its influence is negligible when a small number of cases is considered. It is interesting accordingly to note that of 100 children of incestuous unions and from uncle-niece and aunt-nephew marriages from Bemiss, Huth and other sources, the sex distribution was 48 males and 52 females, giving a negative masculinity of 92. |
|