Journal of Interdisciplinary History, xxxix:2 (Autumn, 2008), 211–232.

THE STATURE AND BMI OF MEXICANS IN THE U.S.

Scott Alan Carson
The Stature and Body Mass of Mexicans in
the Nineteenth-Century United States Nineteenth-
century Mexico experienced considerable political and economic
instability. Initially a Spanish colony, Mexico (New Spain), gained
its independence in 1821. For the next ªfty-ªve years, political
power vacillated between various factions. The Textepuc Revolu-
tion of 1876 and the rise of the Porªriato also altered Mexican
political and economic arrangements even more drastically.
Throughout this period, two similar Mexican groups resided in
the American West—those born in Mexico and those born in the
stati Uniti. This situation creates the conditions for a natural
experiment
from the two
groups—each identiªed as Mexicans at the time of incarceration
and each maturing under different biological conditions and dif-
ferent political regimes. In nineteenth-century Mexico, these bio-
logical factors bore some relation to poorly developed political and
economic institutions. Until the fourth quarter of the nineteenth
century, Mexico’s economy depended on an inefªcient overland
transportation system that kept the costs of domestic transporta-
tion high. On the northern side of the U.S. border, transportation
costs fell and markets were integrated.1

to compare male prison inmates

The average stature of a population reºects the net cumula-
tive difference between nutrition and the calories required for
work and for resistance to disease. When diets, health, or physical

Scott Alan Carson is Associate Professor of Economics, University of Texas, Permian Basin.
He is the author of “The Biological Living Conditions of Nineteenth-Century Chinese Males
in America,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XXXVII (2006), 201–217; “Indentured Migra-
tion to America’s Great Basin,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XXXIV (2004), 569–594.
The author thanks John Komlos, Paul Hodges, Tom Maloney, Marco Sunder, Timo-
thy Cuff, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments, and Ryan Keifer, Billy Mann, E
Anita Voorhies for research assistance.

© 2008 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and The Journal of Interdisciplinary
History, Inc.

1
John H. Coatsworth, “Obstacles to Economic Growth in Nineteenth Century Mexico,"
American Historical Review, LXXXIII (1978), 80–81; Friedrich Katz, “The Liberal Republic
and the Porªriato, 1867–1910,” in Leslie Bethell (ed.), Mexico since Independence (New York,
1991), 49–124; Stephen Haber, “The Commitment Problem and Mexican Economic His-
tory,” in Jeffrey Bortz, and idem (eds.), The Mexican Economy: Essays on The Economic History of
Institution, Revolution and Growth (Stanford, 2002).

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j
io

/

N
H
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
9
2
2
1
1
1
7
0
5
6
9
8

/
j
io

.

.

N
H
2
0
0
8
3
9
2
2
1
1
P
D

.

.

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

212 | SCOTT ALAN CARSON

environments
it decreases
improve, average stature increases;
when diets become less nutritious, disease environments deterio-
rate, or the physical environment places more stress on the body.
The consideration of average rather than individual stature miti-
gates genetic differences, leaving only the net cumulative inºu-
ence of the environment on stature.

The body mass index (bmi) reºects the net current balance
between nutrition, disease, lavoro, and the physical environment;
the calculation of average bmi ensures that only current environ-
mental inºuences remain. Hence, stature and bmi provide sig-
niªcant insights into historical processes, especially for nineteenth-
century Mexican biological conditions, for which other indica-
tions of living standards may be scarce. The statures and bmis of
male Mexicans born in both Mexico and the United States can
mark variations in biological living conditions, political instability,
and economic circumstances.

The records of nineteenth-century U.S. prisons prove partic-
ularly useful in assessing biological markers, since prison data in-
clude reliable measurements for height and weight. Inmates were
often from the lowest socioeconomic class, the one most vulnera-
ble to economic change.2

The literature on late nineteenth- and early twentieth-
century Mexican biological conditions during Mexico’s earliest
years of political and economic development is substantial. López-
Alonso and Condey demonstrated that the height of Mexican sol-
diers born in the late nineteenth century remained approximately
constant, despite Mexico’s political
instability, and Mexican
heights in the early twentieth century were the same as they were
in the 1870s. From a sample of Mexican-born prisoners in U.S.
prisons, Carson also found that adult Mexican statures stagnated
during the late nineteenth century. During the 1890s, young male
Mexican statures declined by approximately 1 cm precisely when

2 Richard Steckel, “Slave Height Proªles from Coastwise Manifests,” Explorations in Eco-
nomic History, XVI (1979), 365–367; James M. Tanner, Growth at Adolescence (Springªeld,
Ill.,1962), 1–27; idem, “Growth in Height as a Measure and a Mirror of the Standard of Liv-
ing,” in John Komlos (ed.), Stature, Living Standards, and Economic Development (Chicago,
1994), 1–5; Robert W. Fogel, “Economic Growth, Population Theory and Physiology: IL
Bearing of Long-Term Processes on the Making of Economic Policy,” American Economic Re-
view, LXXXIV (1994), 375; Barry Bogin, Patterns in Human Growth (New York, 1988), 288;
Komlos and Jörg Baten, “Anthropometric Research and the Development of Social Science
History,” Social Science History, XXVIII (2004), 199.

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j
io

/

N
H
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
9
2
2
1
1
1
7
0
5
6
9
8

/
j
io

.

.

N
H
2
0
0
8
3
9
2
2
1
1
P
D

.

.

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

THE STATURE AND BMI OF M EXI CANS I N THE U.S. | 213

Porªrian Diaz undertook railroad construction to permit factor
mobility. Inequality also increased during the Porªriato because
policies
intended to stimulate rapid economic development
tended to foreclose peasants and campesinos from opportunity.3
Goldstein found that early twentieth-century Mexican chil-
dren born in the United States were taller than their Mexican-
born parents, and that the children of Mexican immigrants were
taller than the Mexicans who remained in Mexico. Kelly observed
an early twentieth-century stature gradient running from north to
south, northern Mexicans being taller than southern Mexicans.
In an allied study on early twentieth-century indigenous Mexi-
cans, Faulhaber also noticed this north-south stature gradient.
What we do not know, Tuttavia, is how the statures of Mexicans
born in Mexico compared with those of Mexicans born in the
United States over the course of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries. Nor do we know much about how the bmis
of Mexicans—whether of those born in Mexico or those born in
the United States—varied during this period. This study of Mexi-
can inmates in U.S. prisons extends Mexican stature data further
back in time and offers new insights into the processes inºuencing
Mexican bmis.4

This article addresses two questions: Primo, how did political
instability and economic ºuctuation affect the biological condi-
tions of Mexicans born in Central America, if at all, relative to
Mexicans born in the United States? Secondo, given that Mexicans
born in the United States were taller than those born in Mexico,
did the nineteenth-century biological condition of Mexicans born
in Mexico and of those born the United States converge, or were

3 Moramay López-Alonso, “Height, Health, Nutrition and Wealth: A History of Living
Standards in Mexico, 1870–1950,” unpub. Ph.D. diss. (Stanford University, 2000); idem and
Raul Porras Condey, “The Ups and Downs of Mexican Economic Growth: The Biological
Standard of Living and Inequality,” Economics and Human Biology, IO (2003), 169–186; Carson,
“The Biological Standard of Living in 19th Century Mexico and the American West,” Eco-
nomics and Human Biology, III (2005), 414–415; Haber, Industry and Underdevelopment: The In-
dustrialization of Mexico, 1890–1940 (Stanford, 1989), 16–18; Bortz and Haber, “The New
Institutional Economics and Latin American Economic History,” in idem (eds.), Mexican Econ-
omy, 1–20; Aurora Gomez-Galvarriato, “Measuring the Impact of Institutional Change in
Capital-Labor Relations in the Mexican Textile Industry, 1900–1930,” in ibid, 290.
4 Marcus Goldstein, Demographic and Bodily Changes in Descendants of Mexican Immigrants
(Austin, 1943), 16–17; Arthur Randolph Kelly, Physical Anthropology of a Mexican Population in
Texas (New Orleans, 1947), 18; Johanna Faulhaber, “The Anthropometry of Living Indians,"
in T. Dale Stewart (ed.), Handbook of Middle American Indians (Austin, 1970), IX, 94–96.

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j
io

/

N
H
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
9
2
2
1
1
1
7
0
5
6
9
8

/
j
io

.

.

N
H
2
0
0
8
3
9
2
2
1
1
P
D

.

.

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

214 | SCOTT ALAN CARSON

Mexico and the American West sufªciently different to prevent
biological integration among similar Mexican cohorts? During the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the economic and
biologico
socioeconomic
groups deteriorated; how these statistics varied for Mexicans born
in Mexico and those born in the United States during this period
remains to be seen.

situation in Mexico among lower

data regarding mexicans in u.s. prisons during the nine-
teenth century Two common sources for heights in the nine-
teenth century are prison and military records. The data in this
study of Mexican anthropometrics are a subset of a much larger
nineteenth-century U.S. prison sample. All available records from
NOI. state repositories have been entered into a master ªle, includ-
ing those from Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois,
Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Penn-
sylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washington. The four
southwestern state prisons—in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico,
and Texas—provide the data of this study. Females and non-
Mexicans are excluded from the analysis.

All historical height and weight data have various selection
biases; in this respect, entry requirements, whether for prison or
the military, are always a concern. Although prison records are not
random samples, the inherent selectivity within them has its
advantages—for instance, their tendency to favor lower socioeco-
nomic groups. Inoltre, since eligibility for incarceration was
based on criminal, not biological, standards, prison records are a
valuable source of important statistics. Since stature rarely had any
relation to the crimes for which individuals were imprisoned,
height variation within prison data is probably consistent with
general Mexican biological conditions in the Southwest.5

Physical descriptions were recorded carefully in U.S. prisons
at the time of incarceration; they served as means of identiªcation
when inmates escaped and were later re-captured. Prison ofªcials
recorded age, place of birth, crime, pre-incarceration occupation,
race, height, and weight. Many of the institutions that took stature
measurements in the nineteenth century rounded them to the

5 Bogin, Human Growth, 288; Komlos and Baten, “Anthropometric Research," 199;
Steckel, “Stature and the Standard of Living,” Journal of Economic Literature, XXX (1995),
1910.

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j
io

/

N
H
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
9
2
2
1
1
1
7
0
5
6
9
8

/
j
io

.

.

N
H
2
0
0
8
3
9
2
2
1
1
P
D

.

.

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

THE STATURE AND BMI OF M EXI CANS I N THE U.S. | 215

nearest inch or half-inch, but most prison inmates were recorded
at quarter- , eighth- , and even sixteenth-inch increments.

The fact that Mexican inmates were recorded as “Mexican”
in the complexion column of the entry form permits a comparison
of Mexican-born individuals to their U.S.-born counterparts.
Since stature and bmis are sensitive to age, inmates twenty-two
years old and younger are classiªed herein as youths, and inmates
twenty-three years old and older are classiªed as adults. Tavolo 1,
which summarizes each state prison’s youth and adult populations,
indicates that more than one-half of the Mexican-born inmates
were incarcerated in Texas.

Most of the Mexicans in the sample were born during the
mid-to-late nineteenth century, and most of them were unskilled
workers (Tavolo 1). Predictably, border states had higher concen-
trations of Mexican prisoners.

The majority of state prisons in the U.S. Southwest during
the nineteenth century did not systematically document inmates’
city of birth, only their state or country of origin. Tuttavia, Nuovo
Mexico’s state prison documented the hometown of each Mexi-
can inmate. All of the Mexicans from Mexico were born within
that country’s borders as determined by the 1848 border settle-
ment with the United States; none of them claimed birth in a
township that was to become part of the United States. Therefore,
if the Mexican inmates in other southwestern prisons had back-
grounds similar to those in the sample serving time in New Mex-
ico, the Mexican inmates were most likely born within Mexico
after the 1848 border settlement. Most inmates with identiªable
hometowns were from Ciudad Juárez, Santa Rosalia, Chihuahua,
Matamoros, and other northern provinces (Figura 1). Relatively
few inmates were from Zacatecas and Mexico City provinces, IL
Yucatan Peninsula, or farther south; 80.9 percent were from
northern provinces; 17.7 percent were from central provinces; E
1.4 percent were from southern provinces. The prison records of
New Mexico show a slight north-south stature gradient for Mexi-
cans born in Mexico, but it was not statistically signiªcant. Essere-
cause the date when Mexicans immigrated into the United States
is not available, the extent to which the U.S. environment was re-
sponsible for their physical growth is not fully ascertainable. How-
ever, Goldstein discovered that early twentieth-century Mexican
immigrants to the United States were 21.2 years old at time of im-

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j
io

/

N
H
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
9
2
2
1
1
1
7
0
5
6
9
8

/
j
io

.

.

N
H
2
0
0
8
3
9
2
2
1
1
P
D

.

.

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

T
N
e
C
R
e
P

2
5
.
1

1
1
.
5

6
6
.
2
1

3
7
.
0
2

0
0
.
3
2

1
8
.
1
2

2
0
.
4
1

4
1
.
1

0
0
.
0
0
1

7
8

2
9
2

3
2
7

N

4
8
1
,
1

4
1
3
,
1

6
4
2
,
1

5
6

1
0
8

2
1
7
,
5

T
N
e
C
R
e
P

0
7
.

4
3
.
2

8
5
.
7

3
0
.
7
1

1
0
.
5
2

4
0
.
6
2

2
2
.
9
1

8
0
.
2

0
0
.
0
0
1

4
2

0
8

9
5
2

2
8
5

5
5
8

0
9
8

7
5
6

1
7

N

8
1
4
,
3

T
N
e
C
R
e
P

2
2
.
1

7
0
.
4

6
7
.
0
1

4
3
.
9
1

6
7
.
3
2

0
4
.
3
2

7
9
.
5
1

9
4
.
1

0
0
.
0
0
1

o
C
io
X
e
M

N

io

N
R
o
B

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

.
S
.
tu

e
H
T

N

io

N
R
o
B

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

T
N
e
C
R
e
P

9
4
.
1

8
0
.
2
1

3
4
.
5

1
0
.
9
7

0
0
.
2

0
0
.
0
0
1

5
8

0
9
6

0
1
3

N

4
1
1

3
1
5
,
4

2
1
7
,
5

T
N
e
C
R
e
P

7
8
.
1

6
6
.
8

7
0
.
9

9
4
.
2

1
9
.
7
7

0
0
.
0
0
1

4
6

6
9
2

0
1
3

N

5
8

3
6
6
,
2

8
1
4
,
3

T
N
e
C
R
e
P

3
6
.
1

9
7
.
6

0
8
.
0
1

8
1
.
2

0
6
.
8
7

0
0
.
0
0
1

o
C
io
X
e
M

N

io

N
R
o
B

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

S
tu

e
H
T

N

io

N
R
o
B

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

1
1
1

2
7
3

2
8
9

N

6
6
7
,
1

9
6
1
,
2

6
3
1
,
2

8
5
4
,
1

6
3
1

0
3
1
,
9

9
4
1

6
8
9

0
2
6

N

9
9
1

6
7
1
,
7

0
3
1
,
9

R
UN
e
sì

H
T
R
io
B

S
0
3
8
1

S
0
4
8
1

S
0
5
8
1

S
0
6
8
1

S
0
7
8
1

S
0
8
8
1

S
0
9
8
1

S
0
0
9
1

l
UN
T
o
T

S
N
o
io
T
UN
P
tu
C
C
o

R
UN
l
l

o
C
–
e
T
io
H
W

D
e
l
l
io
k
S
N
U

D
e
l
l
io
k
S

R
e
M
R
UN
F

N
o
io
T
UN
P
tu
C
C
o

o
N

l
UN
T
o
T

S
N
o
S
io
R
P

e
T
UN
T
S

N
R
e
T
S
e
w
H
T
tu
o
S

.
S
.
U
N

io

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M
sì
R
tu
T
N
e
C
–
H
T
N
e
e
T
e
N
N

io

1

e
l
B
UN
T

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j
io

/

N
H
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
9
2
2
1
1
1
7
0
5
6
9
8

/
j
io

.

.

N
H
2
0
0
8
3
9
2
2
1
1
P
D

.

.

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

T
N
e
C
R
e
P

N

T
N
e
C
R
e
P

N

T
N
e
C
R
e
P

3
1
.
0
3

2
1
7
,
1

2
5
.
2
1

5
1
.
3

2
8
.
3
1

0
0
.
5

4
0
.
8
7

1
3
9
,
2
2
1

0
0
7
,
9
3
5

0
1
3
,
5
9
1

8
6
.
1

3
7
.
9

0
1
7
,
8
4
0
,
3

6
4
.
8
5

0
0
.
0
0
1

1
5
6
,
6
0
9
,
3

0
0
.
0
0
1

6
9

6
5
5

9
3
3
,
3

2
1
7
,
5

6
4
.
2

7
4
.
9
3

5
5
.
5
4

0
0
.
0
0
1

8
2
4

4
8

N

9
4
3
,
1

7
5
5
,
1

8
1
4
,
3

T
N
e
C
R
e
P

N

4
5
.
3
2

7
9
.
1

7
8
.
0
2

3
6
.
3
5

0
0
.
0
0
1

9
4
1
,
2

0
8
1

5
0
9
,
1

6
9
8
,
4

0
3
1
,
9

S
R
UN
e
sì

–
8
8
8
1

9
1
9
1

–
1
7
8
1

5
2
9
1

–
4
8
8
1

7
1
9
1

–
3
7
8
1

9
1
9
1

–
1
5
8
1

5
2
9
1

N
o
S
io
R
P

UN
N
o
z
io
R

UN

o
D
UN
R
o
o
C

l

o
C
io
X
e
M
w
e
N

S
UN
X
e
T

l
UN
T
o
T

e
C
R
tu
o
S

e
T
UN
T
S

N
UN
C
io
R
e
M
UN
M
o
R
F

S
D
R
o
C
e
R

e
l
B
UN
l
io
UN
v
UN

l
l

UN

.
e
l
P
M
UN
S

N
o
S
io
R
P

sì
R
tu
T
N
e
C
–
H
T
N
e
e
T
e
N
N

io

R
e
G
R
UN
l

H
C
tu
M
UN

F
o

T
e
S
B
tu
S

UN

S
io

S
C
io
R
T
e
M
o
P
o
R
H
T
N
UN

N
UN
C
io
X
e
M
sì
D
tu
T
S

o
T

D
e
S
tu

UN
T
UN
D

,

o
C
io
X
e
M
w
e
N

,
io
R
tu
o
S
S
io

M

,
sì
k
C
tu
T
N
e
K

,
S
UN
S
N
UN
K

,
S
io
o
N

io
l
l
IO

,

o
H
UN
D
IO

,

o
D
UN
R
o
o
C

l

,
UN
io
N
R
o
F
io
l
UN
C

,
UN
N
o
z
io
R

UN
M
o
R
F

e
S
o
H
T
G
N
io
D
tu
l
C
N

io

,
e
l
ª
R
e
T
S
UN
M
UN
o
T
N

io
D
e
R
e
T
N
e
N
e
e
B
e
v
UN
H
S
e
io
R
o
T
io
S
o
P
e
R

D
N
UN

,

o
C
io
X
e
M
w
e
N

,

o
D
UN
R
o
o
C

l

,
UN
N
o
z
io
R

UN
M
o
R
F

e
R
UN

T
P
io
R
C
S
tu
N
UN
M

S
io
H
T
N

io

D
e
S
tu
S
D
R
o
C
e
R
N
o
S
io
R
P

.

N
o
T
G
N
H
S
UN

io

W
D
N
UN

,

H
UN
T
U

,
S
UN
X
e
T

,
e
e
S
S
e
N
N
e
T

,
UN
io
N
UN
v
l
sì
S
N
N
e
P

,

N
o
G
e
R
O

,

io

o
H
O

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j
io

/

N
H
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
9
2
2
1
1
1
7
0
5
6
9
8

/
j
io

.

.

N
H
2
0
0
8
3
9
2
2
1
1
P
D

.

.

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

.
S
UN
X
e
T

S
tu
S
N
e
C

0
0
9
1

N
o
io
T
UN
l
tu
P
o
P

N

io

N
R
o
B

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

N

io

N
R
o
B

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

o
C
io
X
e
M

.
S
.
tu

e
H
T

N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

)
D
e
tu
N
io
T
N
o
C

(

1

e
l
B
UN
T

218 | SCOTT ALAN CARSON

Fig. 1 Mexicans Born in Mexico in the Nineteenth-Century New

Mexico Prison

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j
io

/

N
H
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
9
2
2
1
1
1
7
0
5
6
9
8

note The numbers represent the inmates in the New Mexico prison who were born in each
Mexican province. The northern provinces are Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihua-
hua, Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon, Sinaloa, Sonora, and Tamaúlipas. The central prov-
inces are Aguascalientes, Colima, Guanajuato, Querétaro, Hidalgo, México, Tlaxcala, Federal
District, Michoacán, Morelos, Nayarit, Puebla, San Luis Potosi, Veracruz, and Zacatecas. IL
southern provinces are Campeche, Chiapas, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, E
Yucatan.
source Map is from Derek F. Roberts and Marshall T. Newman, “Physiological Studies,” in
T. Dale Stewart (ed.), Handbook of Middle American Indians (Austin, 1970), IX, 150.

migration, indicating that stature growth had ceased by the time of
migration, and thus that the statures of Mexicans born in Mexico
reºected Mexican biological conditions.6

Stature and crime may be related to biological conditions
through the relative effects of privation. The proportions of crimes
committed are reported according to six categories: physical
assault, fraud, murder, sexual assault, theft, and other (Tavolo 2).

6 Goldstein, Demographic and Bodily Changes, 15, 24.

/
j
io

.

.

N
H
2
0
0
8
3
9
2
2
1
1
P
D

.

.

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

THE STATURE AND BMI OF M EXI CANS I N THE U.S. | 219

Tavolo 2 Nineteenth-Century Mexican Youth and Adult Crime Proportions

crime

mexican
youth

mean
stature

Physical assault
Fraud
Murder
Sexual offense
Theft
Other crimes
decade received
1850S

Murder
Theft

1860S

Murder
Theft

1870S

Murder
Theft

1880S

Murder
Theft

1890S

Murder
Theft

1900S

Murder
Theft

9.25
4.64
8.10
3.26
70.18
4.57

167.06
166.98
166.79
166.28
166.97
168.56

0.00
100.00

NA
165.42

14.81
62.96

4.65
75.58

6.14
79.06

8.10
70.20

9.81
64.71

167.05
164.73

168.28
166.51

169.47
167.72

166.95
166.93

166.73
166.31

mean
bmi

22.79
22.25
22.40
22.55
22.38
22.13

NA
NA

NA
NA

22.67
23.04

22.05
22.10

22.39
22.39

21.78
22.59

mexican
adults

mean
stature

14.80
4.44
13.00
5.67
54.16
7.93

11.76
64.71

19.20
56.00

14.44
67.38

13.61
65.42

11.61
58.45

14.03
47.39

167.20
168.17
167.33
167.64
167.51
167.67

165.42
170.58

168.10
167.01

166.35
167.42

167.15
168.51

168.91
167.44

167.09
167.28

mean
bmi

23.11
23.02
23.13
23.11
23.06
23.33

NA
NA

NA
NA

22.91
23.35

23.07
23.00

23.02
23.08

23.22
23.24

source Data used to study Mexican anthropometrics is a subset of a much larger nineteenth-
century prison sample. All available records from American state repositories have been en-
tered into a master ªle, including those from Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois,
Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, and Washington. Prison records used in this manuscript are from Arizona, Colorado,
New Mexico, and Texas.

Throughout the nineteenth century, a higher percentage of Mexi-
can youths born in Mexico and in the United States were incar-
cerated for theft than for any other crime, whereas adults were in-
carcerated more for all other crimes. Since murder and theft are
the most representative violent and nonviolent crimes, their pro-
portions are presented over time to assess whether changing stat-
ure may have been the result of changes in biological processes or

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j
io

/

N
H
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
9
2
2
1
1
1
7
0
5
6
9
8

/
j
io

.

.

N
H
2
0
0
8
3
9
2
2
1
1
P
D

.

.

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

T
l
tu
D
UN

N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

e
tu
l
UN
v
–
P

io

M
B

e
tu
l
UN
v
–
P

N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

io

M
B

H
T
tu
o
sì

e
tu
l
UN
v
–
P

T
l
tu
D
UN

N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

e
R
tu
T
UN
T
S

e
tu
l
UN
v
–
P

e
R
tu
T
UN
T
S

H
T
tu
o
sì

e
M

io
R

C
sì
B

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M
sì
R
tu
T
N
e
C
–
H
T
N
e
e
T
e
N
N

io

F
o

e
R
tu
T
UN
T
S

l
UN
C
io
S
sì
H
P

3

e
l
B
UN
T

1
0
.
(cid:2)

3
1
.
(cid:2)

9
0
.
(cid:2)

7
1
.
(cid:2)

6
1
.
(cid:2)

3
0
.
(cid:2)

0
4
3
.
3
2

4
2
2
.
(cid:3)

8
1
3
.
(cid:3)

2
0
2
.
(cid:3)

8
2
2
.
(cid:3)

5
7
2
.
(cid:3)

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

4
2
5
,
6

3
0
0
0
.

1
0
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

4
6
.
(cid:2)

6
2
.
(cid:2)

0
2
.
(cid:2)

0
2
.
(cid:2)

8
6
6
.

8
1
1
.

8
7
2
.

5
3
4
.

9
5
2
.

0
3
1
.
2
2

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

6
0
6
,
2

4
4
0
0
.

1
0
.
(cid:2)

4
5
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

4
3
.
(cid:2)

6
1
.
(cid:2)

0
1
.
(cid:2)

3
2
2
.

0
0
2
.
1

3
6
3
.

7
7
6
.

9
4
5
.

0
7
9
.
6
6
1

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

4
2
5
,
6

3
1
0
0
.

1
0
.
(cid:2)

5
0
.
(cid:2)

6
0
.
(cid:2)

2
0
.
(cid:2)

2
0
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

6
5
.
8
6
1

0
5
.
1
(cid:3)

8
5
.
1
(cid:3)

7
7
.
1
(cid:3)

8
2
.
2
(cid:3)

9
5
.
1
(cid:3)

6
0
6
,
2

2
3
0
0
.

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

e
S
N
e
F
F
o

e
S
N
e
F
F
o

l
UN
tu
X
e
S

T
P
e
C
R
e
T
N
IO

T
l
tu
UN
S
S

UN

D
tu
UN
R
F

R
e
D
R
tu
M

T
F
e
H
T

R
e
H
T
O

2

N

R

e
T
o
N

e
C
R
tu
o
S

e
T
UN
T
S

N
UN
C
io
R
e
M
UN
M
o
R
F

S
D
R
o
C
e
R

e
l
B
UN
l
io
UN
v
UN

l
l

UN

.
e
l
P
M
UN
S

N
o
S
io
R
P

sì
R
tu
T
N
e
C
–
H
T
N
e
e
T
e
N
N

io

R
e
G
R
UN
l

H
C
tu
M
UN

F
o

T
e
S
B
tu
S

UN

S
io

S
C
io
R
T
e
M
o
P
o
R
H
T
N
UN

N
UN
C
io
X
e
M
sì
D
tu
T
S

o
T

D
e
S
tu

UN
T
UN
D

,

o
C
io
X
e
M
w
e
N

,
io
R
tu
o
S
S
io

M

,
sì
k
C
tu
T
N
e
K

,
S
UN
S
N
UN
K

,
S
io
o
N

io
l
l
IO

,

o
H
UN
D
IO

,

o
D
UN
R
o
o
C

l

,
UN
io
N
R
o
F
io
l
UN
C

,
UN
N
o
z
io
R

UN
M
o
R
F

e
S
o
H
T

G
N
io
D
tu
l
C
N

io

,
e
l
ª
R
e
T
S
UN
M
UN
o
T
N

io
D
e
R
e
T
N
e
N
e
e
B
e
v
UN
H
S
e
io
R
o
T
io
S
o
P
e
R

D
N
UN

,

o
C
io
X
e
M
w
e
N

,

o
D
UN
R
o
o
C

l

,
UN
N
o
z
io
R

UN
M
o
R
F

e
R
UN

T
P
io
R
C
S
tu
N
UN
M

S
io
H
T
N

io

D
e
S
tu
S
D
R
o
C
e
R
N
o
S
io
R
P

.

N
o
T
G
N
H
S
UN

io

W
D
N
UN

,

H
UN
T
U

,
S
UN
X
e
T

,
e
e
S
S
e
N
N
e
T

,
UN
io
N
UN
v
l
sì
S
N
N
e
P

,

N
o
G
e
R
O

,

io

o
H
O

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j
io

/

N
H
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
9
2
2
1
1
1
7
0
5
6
9
8

/
j
io

.

.

N
H
2
0
0
8
3
9
2
2
1
1
P
D

.

.

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

.
S
UN
X
e
T

.
T
F
e
H
T

R
o

,
e
S
N
e
F
F
o

l
UN
tu
X
e
S

,
R
e
D
R
tu
M

,
D
tu
UN
R
F

,
T
l
tu
UN
S
S
UN

N
UN
H
T

R
e
H
T
o

S
e
M

io
R
C

R
o
F

D
e
T
UN
R
e
C
R
UN
C
N

io

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

F
o

D
e
S
o
P
M
o
C

S
io

P
tu
o
R
G

l

o
R
T
N
o
C

THE STATURE AND BMI OF M EXI CANS I N THE U.S. | 221

Fig. 2 Mexican Adult Stature and Body-Mass Histogram with De-

scriptive Stature and bmi

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j
io

/

N
H
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
9
2
2
1
1
1
7
0
5
6
9
8

/
j
io

.

.

N
H
2
0
0
8
3
9
2
2
1
1
P
D

.

.

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

mean

median

standard
deviation

skewness

kurtosis

N

Adult Mexican stature
Adult Hispanic stature
Adult Mexican bmi
Adult Hispanic bmi

65.66
66.40
23.09
23.11

65.75
66.5
22.94
22.95

2.54
2.59
2.27
2.47

(cid:3).030
(cid:3).116
(cid:3).700
(cid:3).793

.855
3.20
1.12
2.44

4,280
2,280
4,280
2,280

source Data used to study Mexican anthropometrics is a subset of a much larger nineteenth-
century prison sample. All available records from American state repositories have been en-
tered into a master ªle, including those from Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois,
Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, and Washington. Prison records used in this manuscript are from Arizona, Colorado,
New Mexico, and Texas.

changes in the types of inmates incarcerated. The stature and bmis
of youths and adults by type of crime committed did not differ ap-
preciably from those of the remainder of the sample. Nor were
Mexican statures systematically explained by the types of crimes
committed (Tavolo 3).

A common difªculty in analyzing military samples is the ap-
plication of a minimum stature requirement, which does not apply

222 | SCOTT ALAN CARSON

to this sample. Hence, adult Mexican stature distributions approx-
imate the norm. Likewise, no conditions were placed on inmates’
bmi distributions, which are, for all intents and purposes, also nor-
mal (Figura 2).7

demographic and socioeconomic effects on mexican stature
and bmi
Mexican Stature
In the nineteenth century American Southwest,
stature differences between Mexicans born in Mexico and those
born in the United States likely reºect the environments in which
they came to maturity. Tavolo 4 presents regressions for Mexican
stature on age, birth, and occupational variables. Because youth
stature is most sensitive to age effects, ªve teenage binary variables
are included (15, 16, 17, 18, E 19); four 10-year adult binary
variables are included (30–39, 40–49, 50–59, E 60 or older). Bi-
nary birth-decade variables are included to account for birth be-
tween 1830 E 1899. Average stature also varied by occupation,
which may have been a good indicator for parental occupation as
BENE, thus indicating the socioeconomic status under which in-
mates came to maturity.8

Four occupational variables

are included—white-collar,
skilled, farmer, and unskilled. Merchants and highly skilled work-
ers are classiªed as white-collar; light manufacturers, craft workers,
and carpenters are classiªed as skilled workers; workers in the agri-
cultural sector are classiªed as farmers; and laborers and miners are
classiªed as unskilled workers (see the Appendix for a complete list
of occupations by category). Stature and bmi standardized regres-
sion coefªcients are also used to adjust for the fact that certain

7 The test for juvenile normality is complicated given that juvenile heights are skewed to
the right at the beginning of the growth spurt and skewed to the left at the end of it—a phe-
nomenon caused by early and late maturers. Kenneth Sokoloff and Georgia Villaºor, “Early
Achievement of Modern Stature in America,” Social Science History, VI (1982), 457; Fogel et
al., “Economics of Mortality in North America, 1650–1910: A Description of a Research
Project,” Historical Methods, XI (1978), 75–108.
8 Dora Costa, “Height, Wealth and Disease among the Native-Born in the Rural Antebel-
lum North,” Social Science History, XVII (1993), 367; Robert Margo and Steckel, “Nutrition
and Health of Slaves and Antebellum Southern Whites,” in Fogel and Stanley E. Engerman
(eds.), Conditions of Slave Life and the Transition to Freedom. II. Without Consent or Contract: IL
Rise and Fall of American Slavery (New York, 1992), 520; S. Goya Wannamethee et al.,
“Inºuence of Father’s Social Class on Cardiovascular Disease in Middle-Aged Men,” Lancet,
CCCILVIII (1996), 1259–1263; Maria Nyström-Peck and Olle Lundberg, “Short Stature as
an Effect of Social Conditions in Childhood,” Social Science Medicine, XL (1995), 733–738.

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j
io

/

N
H
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
9
2
2
1
1
1
7
0
5
6
9
8

/
j
io

.

.

N
H
2
0
0
8
3
9
2
2
1
1
P
D

.

.

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

THE STATURE AND BMI OF M EXI CANS I N THE U.S. | 223

variables have larger standard deviations than others and to illus-
trate the comparative relationship between stature and bmi.
Modelli 1 E 2 in Table 4 present regressions for the statures of
Mexicans born in Mexico on birth cohorts, occupations, and resi-
dence; models 3 E 4 do so for Mexicans born in the United
States; and models 5 E 6 do so for the combined sample.9

Consistent with the ªndings of Lopez-Alonso, Condey, E
Carson, the stature of Mexicans born in Mexico who later lived in
the American Southwest declined throughout the nineteenth cen-
tury (Figura 3). This decline coincided with Mexico’s tumultuous
political and economic climate. The 1830s and 1840s brought
General Antonio López de Santa Anna—a self-styled “Napoleon
of the West”—to power. Between 1846 E 1848, Mexico and
the United States engaged in a bloody war that determined who
would control what is now the U.S. Southwest, and for twenty
years thereafter, various factions vied for power in Mexico. Al
same time, as U.S. political and economic institutions began to
come of age in the Southwest, the average statures of Mexicans
born in the United States underwent an unambiguous, sustained
increase of 3 cm.10

Standardized coefªcients demonstrate that Mexican birth had
the most signiªcant and negative association with stature, indicat-
ing that the two groups experienced different net cumulative bio-
logical conditions, even though they differed only by birthplace.
Part of the stature advantage for Mexicans born in the United
States was probably attributable to diet, speciªcally animal proteins
and calcium, the latter necessary for healthy bone growth. As a
rule, diets in Mexico were vegetarian; staples included beans, rice,
chilies, bread, and tortillas. The major source of calcium for Mexi-
cans born in Mexico was the limestone used to crush the corn or
ºour for the preparation of tortillas. Tuttavia, since both Mexi-

9 Tanner, “Hormonal, Genetic and Environmental Factors Controlling Growth,” in G.A.
Harrison et al. (eds.), Human Biology: An Introduction to Human Evolution, Variation, Growth and
Ecology (New York, 1977), 335–351; Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, “The Conscripts of 1968: UN
Study of the Correlation between Geographical Mobility, Delinquency and Physical Stature
and Other Aspects of the Situation of the Young Frenchman Called to Do Military Service
That Year,” in Ben Reynolds and Sian Reynolds (eds.), The Territory of the Historian (Chicago,
1979), 33–60; Margo and Steckel, “Nutrition and Health of Slaves.”
10 Lopez-Alonso, “Ups and Downs”; Carson, “Mexican Statures”; Colin M. MacLachlan
and William H. Beezley, El Gran Pueblo: A History of Greater Mexico. (Upper Saddle River,
N.J., 1999; orig. pub. 1994).

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j
io

/

N
H
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
9
2
2
1
1
1
7
0
5
6
9
8

/
j
io

.

.

N
H
2
0
0
8
3
9
2
2
1
1
P
D

.

.

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

D
e
z
io
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

e
tu
l
UN
v
–
P

S
l
o

D
e
z
io
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

e
tu
l
UN
v
–
P

S
l
o

D
e
z
io
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

e
tu
l
UN
v
–
P

S
l
o

l
UN
T
o
T

.
S
.
tu

e
H
T

N

io

N
R
o
B

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

o
C
io
X
e
M

N

io

N
R
o
B

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

1
0
.
(cid:2)

9
4
.
8
6
1

1
0
.
(cid:2)

3
3
.
8
6
1

1
0
.
(cid:2)

7
2
.
7
6
1

6
4
0
.
(cid:3)

1
5
0
.
(cid:3)

6
4
0
.
(cid:3)

0
4
0
.
(cid:3)

7
3
0
.
(cid:3)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

0
1
.
5
(cid:3)

4
4
.
3
(cid:3)

4
2
.
2
(cid:3)

3
3
.
1
(cid:3)

3
1
.
1
(cid:3)

0
7
0
.
(cid:3)

8
5
0
.
(cid:3)

9
6
0
.
(cid:3)

6
2
0
.
(cid:3)

7
5
0
.
(cid:3)

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

5
3
0
.
(cid:3)

4
8
0
.
(cid:3)

8
0
0
.
(cid:3)

4
5
0
.
(cid:3)

1
1
0
.

3
1
0
.

6
2
0
.

3
1
0
.

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

0
2
0
.

3
1
0
.

7
0
0
.
(cid:3)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

9
5
.

1
0
.
(cid:2)

9
4
.

9
2
.

4
0
.

1
3
.

2
1
.

2
3
.

4
5
.

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

7
4
5
.
(cid:3)

1
9
.
1
(cid:3)

3
8
2
.
(cid:3)

2
5
.
3
(cid:3)

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

1
1
0
.
(cid:3)

5
4
0
.
(cid:3)

3
0
0
.
(cid:3)

2
3
0
.
(cid:3)

2
2
6
.

9
3
4
.

5
4
5
.

3
1
2
.

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

8
0
3
.
(cid:3)

5
3
2
.
(cid:3)

1
7
3
.
(cid:3)

1
4
0
.
(cid:3)

3
2
0
.
(cid:3)

2
1
0
.
(cid:3)

4
(cid:3)

6
.
5

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

3
1
0
.

5
2
0
.

9
0
0
.

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j
io

1
0
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

3
1
.

1
0
.
(cid:2)

7
5
.

2
0
.

8
8
.

2
1
.

3
1
.

4
2
.

3
5
.

8
9
.

3
5
.

6
2
.

3
6
.

8
2
.
6
(cid:3)

5
5
.
3
(cid:3)

3
9
.
2
(cid:3)

9
3
7
.
(cid:3)

2
6
.
1
(cid:3)

6
2
0
.
(cid:3)

5
4
0
.
(cid:3)

2
3
0
.
(cid:3)

3
5
0
.
(cid:3)

0
2
0
.
(cid:3)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

2
0
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

4
1
.
(cid:2)

1
7
1
.
(cid:3)

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

5
1
.
1
(cid:3)

4
4
1
.
(cid:3)

7
4
.
2
(cid:3)

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

4
5
0
.
(cid:3)

0
1
1
.
(cid:3)

8
0
1
.
(cid:3)

6
1
0
.
(cid:3)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

8
2
.
(cid:2)

6
7
9
.
(cid:3)

4
0
3
.
(cid:3)

0
1
0
.
(cid:2)

1
2
.
3
(cid:3)

3
9
1
.
(cid:2)

7
0
4
.
(cid:2)

8
2
4
.
(cid:2)

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

0
4
0
.
(cid:2)

7
3
0
.
(cid:2)

0
5
0
.
(cid:2)

1
2
0
.
(cid:2)

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

2
4
0
.
(cid:3)

4
4
0
.
(cid:3)

7
1
0
.
(cid:3)

3
0
.
(cid:2)

2
0
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

0
2
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

1
2
.
(cid:2)

8
5
.
3
(cid:3)

7
1
.
3
(cid:3)

1
7
.
1
(cid:3)

2
9
.
1
(cid:3)

3
5
6
.
(cid:3)

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

4
0
8
.
(cid:3)

5
3
.
2
(cid:3)

3
2
.
3
(cid:3)

7
4
9
.
(cid:3)

9
0
.
2

8
0
.
1

7
7
9
.

8
3
3
.

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

9
5
6
.
(cid:3)

6
1
8
.
(cid:3)

4
0
.
1
(cid:3)

/

N
H
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
9
2
2
1
1
1
7
0
5
6
9
8

/
j
io

.

.

N
H
2
0
0
8
3
9
2
2
1
1
P
D

.

.

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

T
P
e
C
R
e
T
N
IO

e
G
UN

5
1

6
1

7
1

8
1

9
1

9
2
–
0
2

9
3
–
0
3

9
4
–
0
4

9
5
–
0
5

(cid:4)
0
6

e
D
UN
C
e
D

H
T
R
io
B

0
3
8
1

0
4
8
1

0
5
8
1

0
6
8
1

0
7
8
1

0
8
8
1

0
9
8
1

0
0
9
1

S
e
T
UN
T
S

D
e
T
io
N
U
e
H
T

N

io

N
R
o
B

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M
D
N
UN

o
C
io
X
e
M
N

io

N
R
o
B

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

R
o
F

S
l
e
D
o
M
N
o
io
S
S
e
R
G
e
R
e
R
tu
T
UN
T
S

4

e
l
B
UN
T

5
2
0
.
(cid:3)

4
0
0
.
(cid:3)

9
4
0
.
(cid:3)

6
3
0
.
(cid:3)

5
0
.
(cid:2)

7
8
.
(cid:2)

2
0
.
(cid:2)

4
2
.
(cid:2)

3
8
0
.

0
6
2
.
1
(cid:3)

(cid:3)

1
3
.
1
(cid:3)

7
6
5
.

(cid:3)

0
3
0
.
(cid:3)

3
1
0
.
(cid:3)

3
5
0
.
(cid:3)

7
1
0
.
(cid:3)

1
2
.
(cid:2)

4
7
.
(cid:2)

8
1
.
(cid:2)

5
7
.
(cid:2)

1
4
.
1
(cid:3)

5
0
3
.
(cid:3)

0
1
2
.
1
(cid:3)

7
6
2
.

(cid:3)

2
2
0
.

6
1
0
.

6
3
0
.

8
4
0
.

4
1
.
(cid:2)

1
6
.
(cid:2)

1
1
.
(cid:2)

7
1
.
(cid:2)

9
0
3
.

9
1
.
1

4
0
.
1

3
6
7
.

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

D
e
z
io
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

e
tu
l
UN
v
–
P

S
l
o

D
e
z
io
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

e
tu
l
UN
v
–
P

S
l
o

D
e
z
io
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

e
tu
l
UN
v
–
P

S
l
o

l
UN
T
o
T

.
S
.
tu

e
H
T

N

io

N
R
o
B

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

o
C
io
X
e
M

N

io

N
R
o
B

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
) M
D
e
tu
N
io
T
N
o
C

(

4

e
l
B
UN
T

3
3
1
.
(cid:3)

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

1
0
.
(cid:2)

9
7
.
1
(cid:3)

UN
N

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

UN
N

UN
N

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

1
1
0
.
(cid:3)

0
3
0
.
(cid:3)

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

3
0
0
.
(cid:3)

5
4
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

2
8
.
(cid:2)

3
6
1
.
(cid:3)

2
4
.
1
(cid:3)

3
4
0
.
(cid:3)

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

0
3
1
,
9

4
5
3
0
.

8
1
0
.
(cid:3)

5
6
0
.
(cid:3)

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

7
3
0
.

1
3
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

5
0
.
(cid:2)

8
4
3
.
(cid:3)

1
7
.
2
(cid:3)

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

2
8
4
.

8
1
4
,
3

9
8
2
0
.

3
1
0
.
(cid:3)

4
1
0
.
(cid:3)

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

6
6
0
.
(cid:3)

5
5
.
(cid:2)

2
3
.
(cid:2)

1
0
.
(cid:2)

e
T
UN
T
S

N
UN
C
io
R
e
M
UN
M
o
R
F

S
D
R
o
C
e
R

e
l
B
UN
l
io
UN
v
UN

l
l

UN

.
e
l
P
M
UN
S

N
o
S
io
R
P

sì
R
tu
T
N
e
C
–
H
T
N
e
e
T
e
N
N

io

R
e
G
R
UN
l

H
C
tu
M
UN

F
o

T
e
S
B
tu
S

UN

S
io

S
C
io
R
T
e
M
o
P
o
R
H
T
N
UN

N
UN
C
io
X
e
M
sì
D
tu
T
S

o
T

D
e
S
tu

UN
T
UN
D

,

o
C
io
X
e
M
w
e
N

,
io
R
tu
o
S
S
io

M

,
sì
k
C
tu
T
N
e
K

,
S
UN
S
N
UN
K

,
S
io
o
N

io
l
l
IO

,

o
H
UN
D
IO

,

o
D
UN
R
o
o
C

l

,
UN
io
N
R
o
F
io
l
UN
C

,
UN
N
o
z
io
R

UN
M
o
R
F

e
S
o
H
T

G
N
io
D
tu
l
C
N

io

,
e
l
ª
R
e
T
S
UN
M
UN
o
T
N

io
D
e
R
e
T
N
e
N
e
e
B
e
v
UN
H
S
e
io
R
o
T
io
S
o
P
e
R

D
N
UN

,

o
C
io
X
e
M
w
e
N

,

o
D
UN
R
o
o
C

l

,
UN
N
o
z
io
R

UN
M
o
R
F

e
R
UN

T
P
io
R
C
S
tu
N
UN
M

S
io
H
T
N

io

D
e
S
tu
S
D
R
o
C
e
R
N
o
S
io
R
P

.

N
o
T
G
N
H
S
UN

io

W
D
N
UN

,

H
UN
T
U

,
S
UN
X
e
T

,
e
e
S
S
e
N
N
e
T

,
UN
io
N
UN
v
l
sì
S
N
N
e
P

,

N
o
G
e
R
O

,

io

o
H
O

l

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

P

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

M

io
T
.

e
D
tu

/
j
io

/

N
H
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

l

F
/

/

/

/

3
9
2
2
1
1
1
7
0
5
6
9
8

/
j
io

.

.

N
H
2
0
0
8
3
9
2
2
1
1
P
D

.

.

.

F

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

T

o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

.
S
UN
X
e
T

2
1
7
,
5

3
3
2
0
.

UN
N

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

N
R
o
B

S
N
UN
C
io
X
e
M

7
8
1
.
(cid:3)

8
1
7
.
(cid:3)

.
S
.
U
e
H
T

N

io

UN
N
o
z
io
R

UN

N
o
S
io
R
P

o
D
UN
R
o
o
C

l

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

3
6
8
.
(cid:3)

o
C
io
X
e
M
w
e
N

S
UN
X
e
T

e
C
R
tu
o
S

N

2

R

S
N
o
io
T
UN
P
tu
C
C
O

R
UN
l
l

o
C
–
e
T
io
H
W

D
e
l
l
io
k
S
N
U

D
e
l
l
io
k
S

R
e
M
R
UN
F

o
N

N
o
io
T
UN
P
tu
C
C
O