their catching no more than a single expression. If many photographs of a person were taken at different times, perhaps even years apart, their composite would possess that in which a single photograph is deficient. I have already pointed out the experience of Mr. Appold to this effect. The analytical tendency of the mind is so strong that, out of any tangle of superimposed outlines, it persists in dwelling preferably on some one of them, singling it out and taking little heed of the rest. On one occasion it will select one outline, on another a different one. Looking at the patterns of the papered walls of our room we see, whenever our fancy is active, all kinds of forms and features; we often catch some strange combination which we are unable to recall on a subsequent occasion, while later still it may suddenly flash full upon us. A composite portrait would have much of this varied suggestiveness.
A further use of the process would be to produce, from many independent portraits of an historical personage, the most probable likeness of him. Contemporaneous statues, medals, and gems, would be very suitable for the purpose, photographs being taken of the same size, and a composite made from them. It will be borne in mind that it is perfectly easy to apportion different "weights" to the different components. Thus, if one statue be judged to be so much more worthy of reliance than another that it ought to receive double consideration in the composite, all that is necessary is to double either the time of its exposure or its illumination.
The last use of the process that I shall mention is of great interest as regards inquiries into the hereditary transmission of features, as it enables us to compare the average features of the product with those of the parentage. A composite of all the brothers and sisters in a large family would be an approximation to what the average of the product would probably be if the family were indefinitely increased in number, but the approximation would be closer if we also took into consideration those of the cousins who inherited the family likeness. As regards the parentage, it is by no means sufficient to take a composite of the two parents; the four grandparents and the uncles and aunts on both sides should be also included. Some statistical inquiries I published on the distribution of ability in families[1] give provisional data for determining the weight to be assigned in the composite to the several degrees of relationship. I should, however, not follow those figures in the present case, but would rather suggest for the earlier trials, first to give equal "weights" to the male and female sides; thus the father and a brother of the male parent would count equally with the father and a brother of the female parent. Secondly, I should "weight" each parent as 4, and each grandparent and each uncle and aunt as 1; again, I should weight each brother and sister as 4, and each of those cousins as 1 who inherited any part of the like-
- ↑ "Hereditary Genius," p. 317. Column D. Macmillan, 1869.
