Galton could not find that the average results from a fairly large number
of cases indicated that stature, eye-color, or other personal
characteristics notably influenced sexual selection, as evidenced by a
comparison of married couples.[180] Karl Pearson, however, in part making
use of a large body of data obtained by Galton, referring to stature and
eye-color, has reached the conclusion that sexual selection ultimately
results in a marked degree of parity so far as these characters are
concerned.[181] As regards stature, he is unable to find evidence of what
he terms "preferential mating"; that is to say, it does not appear that
any preconceived ideals concerning the desirability of tallness in sexual
mates leads to any perceptibly greater tallness of the chosen mate;
husbands are not taller than men in general, nor wives than women in
general. In regard to eye-color, however, there appeared to be evidence of
preferential mating. Husbands are very decidedly fairer than men in
general, and though there is no such marked difference in women, wives are
also somewhat fairer than women in general. As regards "assortative
mating" as it is termed by Pearson,--the tendency to parity or to
disparity between husbands and wives,--the result were in both cases
decisive.
Pages:
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401