The following table compiled from Mulhall[35] and other sources fails to show any correspondence between the percentage of first cousin marriage and the masculinity: TABLE XI. --------------------------------------- Country. |Masculinity.| Per cent 1st | |cousin marriage. --------------------------------------- England | 104.5 | .75 France | 105.3 | 1.26 Italy | 107.0 | .69 Prussia | 105.8 | .67 U.S.[36] | 104.9 | 1.00 Jews[37] | 107.6 | 2.30 --------------------------------------- [Footnote 35: Op. cit., p. 92.] [Footnote 36: Masculinity, _Twelfth Census, Vital Statistics_, Pt. 1. Per cent of cousin marriage, estimated.] [Footnote 37: Duesing, op. cit., p. 24.] It is impossible to obtain the actual masculinity ratio for the United States, for the Census gives the statistics for only one year in ten and even then is untrustworthy on this point. In a few states birth registration is attempted but the figures thus obtained do not harmonize with the Census and the situation is not greatly improved.[38] The masculinity varies considerably in different parts of the country, and is generally higher in states where the rural population predominates. This fact agrees with European statistics which almost universally show a high masculinity in rural districts. Table XII, illustrates this point: TABLE XII. _Masculinity in Scotland_.[39] ------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Mainland |Insular Period. |Principal|Large |Small | rural | rural | towns. |towns.|towns.|districts.|districts. ------------------------------------------------------- 1855-1861| -- | -- | -- | 105.6 | 106.6 1862-1871| -- | -- | -- | 105.9 | 105.6 1872-1881| 105.0 | 105.6| 106.1| 105.3 | 108.0 1882-1891| 105.1 | 105.6| 105.5| 105.5 | 108.7 1892-1901| 104.7 | 104.6| 104.9| 105.2 | 107.1 ------------------------------------------------------- Average | 104.9 | 105.3| 105.5| 105.5 | 107.2 ------------------------------------------------------- [Footnote 38: Massachusetts _Census_, 103.1; Reg. 1891-1900, 105.6. Vermont _Census_, 108.1; Reg. 1890-1896, 105.9. Connecticut _Census_, 103.9; Reg. 1887-1891, 107.2. Rhode Island _Census_, 103.8; Reg. 1854-1901, 104.9.] [Footnote 39: Lewis and Lewis, op. cit., p. 128.] This would seem to bear out the theory that masculinity is affected by consanguineous marriage, for consanguineous marriage is more frequent in rural districts, and especially in insular rural districts. But unless consanguineous marriages can directly be shown to produce an excess of male births greater than the normal, such indirect evidence is valueless.