TABLE XVII. ------------------------------------------------------------- |No. of | | Ave. to |fertile | No. of | fertile Parentage. |marriages.|children.|marriage. ------------------------------------------------------------- First cousin. Gene. | 125 | 672 | 5.4 First cousin. Cor. | 150 | 759 | 5.1 Double cousins and uncle-niece| 9 | 39 | 4.3 Other consanguineous | 333 | 1605 | 4.8 Non-related | 676 | 3417 | 5.1 Ch. of 1st cousins | 294 | 1395 | 4.7 All consanguineous | 617 | 3075 | 5.0 All non-related | 970 | 4812 | 5.0 ------------------------------------------------------------- The report of Dr. Bemiss, and the report of the Ohio commission[47] which he quotes, give the following figures:[48] TABLE XVIII. ------------------------------------------------------- | No. of | | Ave. to | fertile | No. of | fertile Parentage. |marriages.|children.|marriages. ------------------------------------------------------- 1st cousins or nearer[A]| 660 | 3363 | 5.0 More distantly related | 119 | 572 | 4.8 Non-consanguineous | 125 | 837 | 6.7 Ohio consanguineous | 155 | 1021 | 6.6 Ohio non-consanguineous | 200 | 1375 | 6.9 ------------------------------------------------------- [A] Includes double-cousins and uncle-niece marriages. [Footnote 47: Appointed to ascertain the number of the deaf and dumb, blind, idiotic and insane within the State.] [Footnote 48: See Bemiss, in _Trans. of Am. Med. Asso._, vol. xi, 1858, pp. 420-425.] The comparatively low averages of the consanguineous marriages from Bemiss may easily be accounted for by the fact that the cases were highly selected so that nearly one-third of the children were in some way defective, and the parents in many cases were far below the average in vitality. The "more distantly related" are in a still lesser degree representative of the class, since out of a greater possibility of choice a smaller number were chosen. The "non-consanguineous" were supposed to be near the average in vitality and fertility.