Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
I propose in this memoir to deduce, by fair reasoning from acknowledged facts, a more definite notion than now exists of the meaning of the word “kinship.” It is my aim to analyze and describe the complicated connexion that hinds an individual, hereditarily, to his parents and to his brothers and sisters, and, therefore, by an extension of similar links, to his more distant kinsfolk. I hope by these means to set forth the doctrines of heredity in a more orderly and explicit manner than is otherwise practicable. From the well-known circumstance that an individual may transmit to his descendants ancestral qualities which he does not himself possess, we are assured that they could not have been altogether destroyed in him, but must have maintained their existence in a latent form. Therefore each individual may properly be conceived as consisting of two parts, one of which is latent and only known to us by its effects on his posterity, while the other is patent, and constitutes the person manifest to our senses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Francis Galton (1872) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: