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