1
The Physical Anthropology of Frederick Gymer Parsons
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...NWJmNTI4&hl=enIN MEMORIAM
FREDERICK GYMER PARSONS, D.Sc., F.R.C.S., F.S.A., Professor of Anatomy, University of London. 1863-1943
The death of Professor F. G. Parsons at the age of 80 marks the passing of one of the oldest representatives of British Anatomy. To many anatomists in
the country it also marks the loss of a personal friend whose charm of manner was one of his most outstanding qualities. In the field of anatomy he
was noted not only for many solid contributions to anatomical science but also for a great deal of laborious but unobtrusive work on behalf of the
Anatomical Society and anatomical teaching. He had been a member of the Society since 1889, that is to say, two years after its foundation. Indeed, at
the time of his death he was the oldest member of the Society with a membership record of 54 years. He also acted as its secretary from 1895 to 1898, its treasurer from 1903 to 1908, and its president from
1912 to 1914.
Parson's academic life was spent entirely at St. Thomas's Hospital Medical School where he started his career as lecturer in biology, and he was lecturer
and Professor of Anatomy there from 1886 to 1929. His, earliest scientific work was in the field of comparative anatomy, and he first achieved distinction by his studies on comparative myology. Numerous papers on this subject dealing with the muscular anatomy of Carnivora, rodents, edentates, ungulates, etc. were published (partly in collaboration with B. C. A. Windle) in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society. Other important contributions
on skeletal and joint morphology appeared during the same period in the Journal of Anatomy. The general conclusions which arose from these comparative studies were summarized in a series of outstanding
Hunterian Lectures published in 1897 and 1899.
In his attitude towards this field of work, Parsons was a pure morphologist, for while he often sought to explain variations in homologous muscles in different mammals on the basis of functional requirements, the evolutionary implications attracted him most. He was, however, no wild theorist. Methodical and careful in his tedious work of manual dissection, he was also methodical and careful in his interpretation of the observations which he made. As a consequence, his work at this phase of his career is the
more enduring, for his papers contain a vast amount of accurate and systematically recorded data which will always be available to comparative anatomists. In the field of human anatomy Parsons was also a meticulous observer. He published a number of short papers dealing with the topography of soft tissues, among which may especially be mentioned his studies of the caecum, the parotid gland and the cervical fascia. The last named, which was illustrated by careful dissections, demonstrated the absurdities of some of the descriptions of fascial planes in current text-books and played no small part in leading to a much-needed revision.
In 1909 Parsons published a study of the topography and morphology of the human hyoid bone, an element of the human skeleton which hitherto had been curiously neglected in purely descriptive anatomy; thereafter, most of his anatomical papers were concerned with the skeleton. Of special note are his monographs on the characters of the English thigh bone and the proportions and characteristics of the English clavicle. These studies led Parsons from pure topographical anatomy to physical anthropology, and particularly craniology. He had devised a method for constructing average contours of the skull from different points of view, which provided an excellent means for visualizing the appearance of the average of a series of crania, and he used this technique in the systematic study of collections of skulls from Hythe and Rothwell. It has always seemed to me surprising that this method has not been more widely adopted, though a similar (but less effective) procedure was later advocated by Bennington and Pearson in Biometrika.
Later, Parsons made a systematic study of the skeletal remains of the early Anglo-Saxon population of England, and these records are particularly important as a basis of reference fot future workers. In 1928 he published an atlas showing the contours of sixty-six Anglo-Saxon skulls which he had collected from various parts of the country. During the last war, Parsons seized the opportunity offered by prisoners of war to ascertain some objective facts about the racial constitution of the population of Germany, and he was able to show that, except in the coastal districts and along the valley of the Rhine, the so-called 'Nordic' element is very slight indeed.
Parsons's main interest in the physical anthropology of past populations of this country lay in its bearing on the constitution of the present population.
In 1921 he published an important paper on the Long Barrow race and its relationship to the modern inhabitants of London, and he later developed
his ideas in an unusually interesting book on The Earlier Inhabitants of London. In 1927 he was elected President of the Anthropology section of the British Association which met at Leeds, and his presidential address was entitled 'The Englishman of the Future'. In this address he drew attention
to certain changes in the physical proportions of the English population which seemed to him to be taking place. Among other things he concluded that the shape of the skull shows progressive changes particularly in the direction of an increase of the proportional height, and he adduced evidence to show that these changes must be regarded as part of a definite evolutionary process.
From a pure physical anthropologist Parsons in later years became more and more of an antiquarian. His life-long association with St Thomas's Hospital
led him to, make a special study of its history, and the results of his historical researches were published in an outstanding work of three volumes,
which were completed in 1936. After his retirement he continued his antiquarian interests and published several short papers of archaeological interest in local journals.
To the teaching of anatomy he made many contributions. Among these may be specially mentioned his publication (in collaboration with William Wright) of a practical dissecting manual in 1912. The purpose of this book was to relieve the ordinary student of a great deal of cumbersome and unnecessary
topographical detail and to focus his attention on the really important features of human anatomy. This book was regularly used in certain
medical schools, but the time was not then ripe for it to displace the more elaborate manuals which it was commonly regarded as necessary that the
student should wade through. The work which Parsons did for the Anatomical Committee of London in his position as Secretary over a period of many years will be remembered with gratitude by his colleagues, for during this time he did very excellent service for the maintenance of the supply of dissecting material.
In this short account I have endeavoured to give a general survey of the fine record of solid scientific work which Parsons has left behind him. A proportion only of his published works have been mentioned, and a reference to past numbers of the Proceedings of the Zoological Society, the Journal of
Anatomy and the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute will show how productive he was in the fields of anatomy and physical anthropology.
I should like now to give a more personal impression of this distinguished man. Parsons was essentially a craftsman. He loved working with his hands, and he was marvelously skilful with his scalpel and forceps. Many of his dissections will permanently adorn the museum of his own medical school, and
some had the honour of being accepted to take their place among the exhibits in the Hunterian Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. One of his hobbies was wood-carving. His own house was decorated with exquisite carvings of his own creation and he also applied his talent to his anatomical work in the construction of teaching models and in preparing models to show the average proportions of those elements of the English human skeleton which he studied. With his manipulative skill he always seemed to be far more interested in the actual preparati" on of material for his studies than in any
scientific result which accrued from them. Indeed, he started each piece of work with no fixed preconceived ideas and was perfectly content to allow
his data to speak for themselves. Thus he avoided one of the pitfalls likely to beset the comparative anatomist whose main object is to elucidate evolutionary processes, for he was careful to avoid phylogenetic
speculations of wide implications. In the field of anthropology, also, Parsons seldom figured in the controversies which were apt to be rather common in his time, for his attitude to theoretical hypotheses was careful to the extent of being often rather colourless. I remember an occasion on which (with the late Professor Seligman) he was reading a paper on the palaeolithic skull from Cheddar before the Royal Anthropological Institute. In rising to reply to some criticism regarding the probable antiquity of the remains, Parsons made the remark 'I assure members of the Institute that my regard for this skull is purely platonic.' At a time when the echoes of the somewhat acrimonious controversy on the Piltdown skull had not yet died afway, this remark naturally evoked a good deal of amusement. Yet it illustrated very well the attitude of detachment and objectivity which marked all his scientific work.
At one time he came in for a certain amount of criticism from the biometrical school on the ground that the mathematical treatment of his metrical
observations was inadequate. However, he quite frankly disclaimed any particular aptitude as a biometrician and pointed out that the published
data of his measurements were available to anyone who might wish to analyse them by the technique of the biometrical school. He was also somewhat scathing (and not altogether unjustly) of the type of mathematician who, without any biological training or insight, was wont to treat skeletal elements as so many geometrical figures without any
reference to the functional factors which might play a part in determining their proportions.
At St Thomas's Hospital Medical School, Parsons was for many years the central figure, and many of the activities of the School were developed on his
initiative and with his support. As friend and adviser his opinion was always being sought by his colleagues and pupils on all manner of problems, whether concerning administrative policy or purely personal affairs. He had an extraordinarily balanced outlook on life and he was gifted with an
unusually acute sense of humour. These characteristics enabled him to put many difficult situations in their proper perspective, both for himself
and for others who sought his advice. His life was not without personal tragedy. The sudden death of. his wife from an accident in 1915 was a grievous loss to him, and his friends knew well enough how deeply it affected him. Yet his philosophy of life endowed him with a resilience which enabled him to surmount the disaster and to carry on with his life's work with an amazing fortitude.
When he finally retired from St Thomas's Hospital, Parsons settled down in Princes Risborough. He had a house built in a beautiful situation on the slopes of the Chilterns. It was always a delight to visit him there and to stroll with
him through the beautiful beech-woods of the Chilterns, for he always seemed happy and contented and his conversation was full of amusing reminiscences. He spent a great deal of time in his garden, and from time to time he continued actively to maintain his antiquarian interests by local archaeological studies. Indeed, with his garden, his country walks and his interest in local archaeology he seemed to revel in his retirement. Unfortunately, military exigencies compelled him to leave the home he had made, and soon after the beginning of the war he went to live in Thame. But,
as always, he accepted the situation philosophically and found happiness in his new surroundings without any regrets. He lived there with his son and
daughter-in-law.
With the final opportunity available to me before I was compelled under the restrictions of war to lay up my car, I paid a visit to Parsons at Thame in the
summer of 1942. I am glad I did so, for this was the last time I saw my old teacher and friend. My outstanding memories of this visit are first that his
vigour seemed unabated and his contentment with life as great as ever, and secondly, the great joy which he derived from the companionship of his
little grandson.
W. E. LE G. C.
United States
Bookmarks