The difficulties of measuring this limb are even greater than those attaching to the upper, since the head of the femur is buried in the acetabulum and covered over by a mass of muscles, which render its identification extremely difficult. The following table shows the proportions of the various parts according to Marshall:

Male.

Female.

Femur....................

18

units

18

units

Tibia......

14

"

14

"

Foot, from lower border of tibia to end of second toe.........

9

"

8

"

41

40

From this it appears that the lower extremity in the female is proportionately one unit smaller than in the male, and that this difference is found altogether in the foot.

Another useful series of figures, readily to be remembered also, are those relating to the position of different joints from the vertex, which are:

Male.

Female.

Shoulder -

1

head

4

units

1

head

units

Hip -

3

"

4

"

3

"

5

"

Knee-

5

"

4

"

3

"

5

"

Sole of foot

7

"

4

"

7

"

"

The following antero-posterior measurements are also worthy of notice:

Male.

Female.

Knee.....

units

5

units

Calf ------

5

"

"

Foot.....

10½

"

"

From the difference in the points from which measurements are taken it is difficult to compare Topinard's measurements with these, save in the case of the foot. According to the latter author, this forms 15 parts, the stature being represented as 100. Marshall's proportion, reduced to the same terms for the male, comes to 15.6, for the female to 14.17, and the average between the two to almost 15. The difference between the figures may, of course, be racial.

The measurement of the foot, like that of the hand, is of peculiar interest to artists, since it has also been used as a canon of stature. The following table shows the number of times which the foot is included in the stature according to various authorities:

Greeks - - - - - 6 44

Vitruvius ----- 5.9

Alberti..... 6.5

Durer..... 6.0

Schadow ----- 6.6

Quetelet (male) - 6.75

„ (female) - - - 6.25

Duval ----- 633

Marshall ----- 6.38

Topinard ----- 6.6

The remarks of some of the authors on this point are of interest. Roberts says that at all ages of life and in both sexes it forms from the 0.15 to 0.16 of the total height of the individual; it is, however, comparatively a little longer at the period of adolescence, but rather shorter in children and adults. Taking the length of the foot for unity, the total height of man would be six and three-fourths, and of women six and one-fourth. It is generally believed that the length of the foot is equal to the height of the head; but this is only true of the age of ten years; before that period the head is longer, and after it shorter, than the foot. Duval notes the interesting point that the length of the foot being considered as six and one-third times contained in the stature, as he believes to be correct, if one-third of the foot be taken as a canon, it will be found to be contained nineteen times in the stature. But the number nineteen is the same as that which, according to Blanc, in the Egyptian canon expresses the proportion which the middle finger bears to the height.

Quetelet, from whom the remarks quoted above by Roberts are taken, also says: 'It is in drawing the foot that mistakes are most frequently made; in fact, it is so customary to make it too small that the proportion is falsified in all designs where the artist has preferred to please the public rather than to express the truth. Often, in fact, in fashion plates the foot is not represented one-half its correct size. We may say that there is scarcely any human measurement which is more frequently altered; there is a species of foolishness which prevents nature from producing the exact size of this member, and substitutes for it another, which at the same time destroys the harmony of the body and the firmness of its support. The Chinese have even carried these exaggerated tastes to such a pitch that their most distinguished women blush if they know how \o walk. It appears that this faculty should only belong to servants.' The same author mentions that, speaking generally and starting from the age of puberty, the height of the head forms a proportional arithmetical mean between the length of the hand and that of the foot.

Examining this by Topinard's figures, which give for the foot 15.0, for the head 13.3, and for the hand 11.5 respectively, we find that the statement is approximately correct.

Quetelet also notes that, accordings to a well-established belief, the length of the foot is equal to the circumference of the fist, so that we often see drapers wrap the foot of a stocking round the fist in order to avoid the trouble of direct measurement of the hand. This belief, he thinks, is fairly established by his tables, although Roberts does not consider that there is much foundation for it.

Duval endeavours to establish some easy relations between the parts of the lower limb, and says that here, as in the case of the hand, we cannot make the foot a common measure for the interior extremity. It is easy, he says, to perceive upon the skeleton that the distance from the superior extremity of the head of the femur to the inferior border of the internal condyle is equal to two feet; but this has no practical value; it cannot be used on the living body, as it is difficult to recognise the level of the superior part of the femur. If, instead of the head of this bone, we take the superior border of the great trochanter (a part easily felt beneath the skin), we find that the length from that point to the inferior border of the external condyle scarcely ever measures two lengths of the foot; in fact, the great trochanter is upon a considerably lower level than the head of the femur. The leg, including the thickness of the foot, does not contain the length of the foot an even number of times; in fact, the distance from the inferior border of the internal condyle of the femur to the ground (or the sole of the foot) is not equal to twice the length of the foot; but it is interesting to observe in general that the length of the leg, plus the thickness of the foot, is equal to the distance from the great trochanter to the inferior border of the external condyle; therefore, the middle of the lower limb (starting from the great trochanter) corresponds exactly to the line of the knee.