in weight by mental over-exertion has its dark sides also, as is well known. Lunatics often have very heavy brains. The main point is that it cannot be proven that intelligence (something entirely different from productiveness) has any relation to weight. It is true of the external formation also, that until now, no connection could be shown between certain forms and higher mental development, intelligence, or genius.”[157] It is established, then, that we cannot draw conclusions from the brainweight as to mental qualities, as little as we can draw conclusions from the size of the body as to physical strength. The large mammals, such as elephant, whale, etc., have larger and heavier brains; yet in regard to proportional brainweight they are excelled by most birds and small mammals. We have some very small animals (ant, bee) that are far more intelligent than much larger ones (for instance, sheep, cow), just as people of large stature often are mentally inferior to persons of small and insignificant appearance. According to all probability the mass of the brain is not the determining factor, ~but its organization and the practice and use of its powers~. “In my opinion,” says Professor L. Stieda, “the difference in psychic functions can doubtlessly be accounted for by the finer construction of the gray matter, the nerve cells, the white matter, the arrangement of the blood-vessels, the construction, form, size and number of nerve-cells, and last but not least, their nutrition, their metabolic assimilation.”[158] If the brain is to attain the full development of its faculties, it must be exercised regularly, and the brain must be properly nourished, just as every other organ; if this is left undone, or if the training is a faulty one, the normal development will be hampered, even crippled. One faculty is developed at the expense of another. There are some anthropologists, as Manouvrier and others, who even seek to prove that woman is morphologically more highly developed than man. That is an exaggeration. Duckworth says: “When we compare the two sexes, we find that there is no constant difference that lets one sex appear morphologically superior to the other.”[159] Havelock Ellis only admits of one limitation. He believes that female characteristics show fewer variations than the male. But, in an anticritique, Karl Pearson has explicitly shown that this is only a pseudo-scientific superstition.[160]