THE FOLLOWING ARE A LIST OF ERRATA THAT HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED IN THE BOOK TITLED THE HISTORY OF CORRELATION AFTER IT WAS PUBLISHED IN LATE 2024 BY THE CRC PRESS OF THE TAYLOR & FRANCIS PUBLISHING GROUP. THE ERRATA ARE ARRANGED IN ORDER BY PAGE NUMBER. IF YOU KNOW OF OTHER ERRATA, PLEASE FORWARD THEM TO ME, THE AUTHOR, JOHN NICHOLAS ZORICH, VIA EMAIL TO… JOHNZORICH@YAHOO.COM

NOTE: Some errata were noticed by me immediately after launch of this book on December 4, 2024. These errata were somehow caused by editorial process of converting the book from its final approved computer file into a production-ready file. I quickly brought these errata to the attention of the publisher, who agreed to stop production (some books had already shipped), to fix the file, and then to resume production. Therefore, in a real sense, there are two version of the 1st edition of this book. In the revised 1st edition, the publisher also allowed me to fix several other problems that I had missed during my final review. The errata below are annotated as to which of them were fixed in the revised 1st edition; all the other errata exist in both versions.

Page x (in the Preface):

• The website URL mentioned in the last sentence of the Preface (just prior to the poem) is actually…
  https://www.johnzorich.com/correlationbook
  In other words, there’s no hyphen between “john” and “zorich” (as it appears in the published text); that potentially confusing hyphen was caused by a last-minute change to the size of the margins, a change that was implemented so that my poem could be added to that page (an addition that I requested and that I am so very grateful for the editors having allowed); however, that change resulted in the URL no longer fitting on the one line; the editor’s software then automatically added a hyphen to the middle of the now separated parts of the URL.
  This erratum was corrected in the revised 1st-edition.

Page xi (“Acknowledgments” page)

• Melinda Baldwin reported by email to the author (on 2025-02-10) that “I will note in passing, for the purpose of any corrected or future editions, that I have not been at Harvard for some time; I’m now at the University of Maryland… [as an] Associate Professor of History, AIP Endowed Professor in History of Natural Sciences.”

Page 2:

• In the italicized quotation given in the middle of the page, there is a space between the "c" and "a" in "hypothetical". That space was somehow added by the final steps of the editorial process (that is, there was no space in the final CRC-Press-edited WORD copy that I approved for publication). I discovered this error after the book went to press.

Page 9:

• In the first large quotation, in the 5th line, an unnecesary space has been added between the “R” in “Roy. Soc…” and the apostrophe that precedes it. This was my blunder.

Page 10:

• In the middle of the page, the 2-line partial sentence + partial quotation that starts “Therefore” and ends “called regression” should be followed not by one but three periods (i.e. not “.” but “…”), to avoid misleading the reader into thinking that the end of Galton’s sentence (which I quote there) and the end of my sentence have been reached. This was my blunder.

• In the next 2 lines, the partial sentence + partial quotation that begins “could have” and ends “called regression” should be followed not by one but four periods (i.e. not “.” but “….” ), in order to indicate that my sentence has ended but that Galton’s sentence (which I quote there) has not. This was my blunder.

Page 58:

• In the first sentence, “the first cousin” I think reads better as “a first cousin” (the “the” was put there by the publisher’s copy editor, not me, and I didn’t notice it until after the book went to press).

Page 65 (in the “1872” section):

• "Here, he described..." would be more clearly stated as "There, he described..."

• “…the correlation between forests and humidity” should be followed by a period, not a colon; the draft that had I submitted had a period, but somehow it was changed to a colon during the editorial process, and I didn’t notice it until after the book went to press.

• "The source and meaning of the term..." would be more clearly stated as "The source and meaning of that term..."

• "...however, this quote..." would be more clearly stated as "...however, that quote..."

• “…involves an Observational Correlation” should be followed by a period, not a colon; the draft that had I submitted had a period, but somehow it was changed to a colon during the editorial process, and I didn’t notice it until after the book went to press.

Page 66 (at the top of the page):

• "These are classic..." would be more clearly stated as "Those are classic..."

Page 68 (at the bottom of the page)

• The sentence “This is an Observational Correlation” would be more clearly stated as “That is an Observational Correlation”.

• That same sentence should end with a period, not a colon; the draft that had I submitted had a period, but somehow it was changed to a colon during the editorial process, and I didn’t notice it until after the book went to press.

Page 76:

• At the top of the page, the third bulleted text (“Galton had previously…”) should not have been indented and should not have been bulleted, and none of that sentence should have been italicized; the draft that had I submitted did not have these errors, but somehow they were introduced during the editorial process, and I didn’t notice them until after the book went to press.

Page 77:

• Near the bottom of the page, the sentence that ends in “…’smoothed’ his data’” should end with a colon, not a semi-colon (or so I think, now).

Page 78:

• At the bottom of the page, the sentence that ends in “…in Natural Inheritance that” should end with three periods (i.e. “that…”), not a colon (or so I think, now).

Page 93:

• In the middle of the page, the sentence that ends in “…to agree or disagree with him” should end with a period, not a colon; the draft that had I submitted had a period, but somehow it was changed to a colon during the editorial process, and I didn’t notice it until after the book went to press.
  This erratum was corrected in the revised 1st-edition.

Page 103:

• In the middle of the page, the sentence that ends in “the idea is even more frequently present than the phrase” should end with a period, not a colon; the draft that I had submitted had a period, but somehow it was changed to a colon during the editorial process, and I didn’t notice it until after the book went to press.|
  This erratum was corrected in the revised 1st-edition.

• In the middle of the page, the sentence that ends in “by Cuvier, Owen, and Darwin” should end with a period, not a colon; the draft that I had submitted had a period, but somehow it was changed to a colon during the editorial process, and I didn’t notice it until after the book went to press.
  This erratum was corrected in the revised 1st-edition.

Page 104:

• In the middle of the page, the sentence that ends in “given its location in Galton’s paper” should end with a period, not a colon; the draft that I had submitted had a period, but somehow it was changed to a colon during the editorial process, and I didn’t notice it until after the book went to press.
  This erratum was corrected in the revised 1st-edition.

• In the middle of the page, the sentence that ends in “in his December 1888 paper” should end with a period, not a colon; the draft that I had submitted had a period, but somehow it was changed to a colon during the editorial process, and I didn’t notice it until after the book went to press.
  This erratum was corrected in the revised 1st-edition.

Page 173:

• In the first paragraph, the reference to “That 1886 paper” is given as “Galton 1888a”, which of course is wrong; that third “8” should have been a “6”, as in “…1886a”. My blunder — it is humorously ironic that this is a reference blunder in my text that discussed the reference blunder that Bowley made!
  This erratum was corrected in the revised 1st-edition.

Page 214:

• In the 3rd line of the 2nd italicized quotation, the "i7s" should be "is" (i.e., remove the 7 that mysteriously appeared in the final copy, just before it went to press)
  This erratum was corrected in the revised 1st-edition.

• In the 7th line of the 4th italicized quotation, the "7are" should be "are" (i.e., remove the 7 that mysteriously appeared in the final copy just before it went to press).
  This erratum was corrected in the revised 1st-edition.

Page 263:

• In the large quotation that starts with “Consider…” in the middle of the page, at the end of the first paragraph in that quotation, is a sentence that starts “We wish to make Σδ…”. In my submitted manuscript, the next text is a superscripted “2” (that is, to indicate a squaring). However, the published book has a non-superscripted “2” (which indicates a multiplication by 2). That error somehow appeared when the final post-edit copy that I was sent to review/approve was converted into the PDF copy from which the production copy was created; I discovered the error, by chance, after the book went to press.

Page 277:

• When the editors inserted Figure 8.3 (on page 276), they accidentally deleted a partial sentence that should have appeared at the top of page 277. That deleted partial sentence is…
  “Such a perfectly straight line as seen in Figure 8.3 is to be expected, based upon the fact that...”.
  For some reason, that deletion was not marked as such in the post-edit copy that I was sent to review and approve; I discovered the deletion, by chance, after the book went to press.
  This erratum was corrected in the revised 1st-edition.

• In the 8th line from the bottom of the page, the word “than” should be “that”; that is, the text should read “…the variance of Y that can be attributed…”; this was my blunder in copying the text from the source hardcopy.