On "WASPs":

Lewis Lapham: Mike was still having trouble with the different meanings of the word class. Despite having gone to Yale, he suffered the pangs of social inadequacy. He associated the word class with New England ancestors, very old money, and the characters in a tale told by F. Scott Fitzgerald. But, he was willing to correct his examination paper.

Mike: Have the old families, I mean the WASPs, really disappeared, or are they just keeping their heads down?

Mike: How do you think that wealth, power is structured anymore?

Samuel Peabody: Well in my case, our case, wealth was rather dissipated by the time it got to my father, who was a clergyman. Groton was, as you know, founded by my grandfather. Much of the leadership of the country, especially in the 30s, were Groton graduates. I don't see that happening today. Isn't it interesting? Where does the leadership come from today? For my money, we're wandering. Where are we going? I don't know. Thinking about it I thought that after the Marshall Plan this country was at its peak. This was the finest moment. After that we've been going bump, bump, bump.

Lewis Lapham: If the country's wealth no longer rests in the exclusive hands of the Protestant social establishment, where then does one look for America's Class A stock? It occurred to me that Mike would profit from a meeting with a well-connected hedge fund manager.

On "merit":

Jack: But I'm still troubled by you calling it a ruling class. I mean, this is America, it's a democracy. People get where they're going based on merit.

Lewis Lapham: All ruling classes are based on merit, Jack. The principle was as true of Nazi Germany as it was of Louis XIV's France. The question is, how do you define merit? Of what does merit consist?

Mike: Right, because in the old monarchies, merit was born in the blood. The question is, where is it born in America?

On our "manufactured" elite:

Mike: I think I'm beginning to understand. The ruling class is still mostly male and mostly white; but outside of those few restrictions, just about anybody can make the grade.

Lewis Lapham: Americans are an inventive people, Mike. We manufacture our ruling elites, what we like to call the meritocracy, in the same way that we build SUVs or 747s. The members come and go, in power for a season or a generation, then replaced by new technology, fresh money.

Or, to plagiarize myself: If we're speaking of Davos types -- high-level politicians and bureaucrats, and upper management of large companies -- these people are predominantly drawn from middle/working class backgrounds. For the most part, they circulate into and out of this elite during their lifetimes. These types are frequently contemptible for sure, but blame the (as it happens, highly-democratized) system that trained and selected them for that, not "upper-class whites", which present international elites for the most part aren't.

Besides intelligence (which probably pretty much every elite in history has been selected on to one degree or another), present elites are selected for rootlessness, conformity, low fertility, etc.

So it's clear where I'm coming from: there will always be hierarchy and there will always be social mobility. But some forms of social organization will be better and some will be worse. The particular "meritocratic" system of selecting elites that grew up after WWII has been a disaster for America's ethnic core. Blame of "WASPs" or the "upper class" typically is misplaced.

Possibly related:

Goodhart's Law: ' When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure'. Universities optimise for grades instead of knowledge. Politicians seek popularity, not the public good. Tomatoes are bred into heavy, flavorless sacks of water. Soviet Nail factories, when instructed to produce a certain number of nails per month, produced tiny, useless nails. Science is no different.

The American Ruling Class is one of the most unusual films to be made in America in recent years -- both in terms of form and content. The form is a "dramatic-documentary-musical" and the content is our country's most taboo topic: class, power and privilege in our nominally democratic republic.

At bottom the film is a morality tale, the story of two Yale students (played by Harvard men) who seek their opportunities upon graduation. As the renowned essayist, author and longtime Harper's magazine editor Lewis Lapham conducts them through the corridors of power: Pentagon press briefings, the World Economic Forum, philanthropic foundations, Washington law firms, corporations, banks, the Council on Foreign Relations, and New York society dinners--our two representative graduates "one rich and the other not so rich" must struggle with their responsibilities in "a world collaterally damaged by the magic of money and the miracles of science." The real-life luminaries they meet on their journey become characters in a story about power, its responsibilities and abuses.

All the while "the Mighty Wurlitzer" plays on, a reference to the massive propaganda apparatus invented by the CIA's Frank Wisner, here used to signify the nocturnal philosophy of acquisition and imperial hubris which continually calls to the young men, the siren song of careerist myopia that was bred into their bones at school.

As we watch these two young men wend their way through what is only a slight fictionalization of their actual lives and choices, as we meet former Secretaries of State and Defense, directors of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, the publisher of The New York Times, Kurt Vonnegut, Howard Zinn, Barbara Ehrenreich, Robert Altman and a host of others, we have to ask along with Mr. Lapham: "To what end the genius of the Wall Street banks and the force of the Pentagon's colossal weapons? Where does America discover the wisdom to play with its wonderful toys?" The possible answers move beyond the empty distinction of party affiliation and into the heart of American Oligarchy itself. By film's end, the young men must decide: Should they seek to rule the world, or to save it?

Appearing on the screen are a range of leaders and commentators from across the political spectrum, among them: the late Robert B. Altman, James A. Baker III, Bill Bradley, Harold Brown, Hodding Carter III, William T. Coleman, Jr., Walter Cronkite, Barbara Ehrenreich, Vartan Gregorian, Doug Henwood, Mike Medavoy, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., John Perkins, (a.k.a., the economic hit-man) Samuel Peabody, Pete Seeger, Lawrence H. Summers, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., William Howard Taft IV, the late Kurt Vonnegut and Howard Zinn.

Are human beings born good and corrupted by society or born bad and redeemed by civilization? Lately, goodness has been on a roll, scientifically speaking. It turns out that even 1-year-olds already sympathize with the distress of others and go out of their way to help them.

But the most recent work suggests that the origins of evil may be only a little later than the origins of good.

Our impulse to love and help the members of our own group is matched by an impulse to hate and fear the members of other groups. In "Gulliver's Travels," Swift described a vicious conflict between the Big-Enders, who ate their eggs with the big end up, and the Little-Enders, who started from the little end. Historically, largely arbitrary group differences (Catholic vs. Protestant, Hutu vs. Tutsi) have led to persecution and even genocide.

When and why does this particular human evil arise? A raft of new studies shows that even 5-year-olds discriminate between what psychologists call in-groups and out-groups. Moreover, children actually seem to learn subtle aspects of discrimination in early childhood. [. . .]

The adults were more likely to say that angry faces were black. Even people who would hotly deny any racial prejudice unconsciously associate other racial groups with anger.

But what about the innocent kids? Even 3- and 4-year-olds were more likely to say that angry faces were black. In fact, younger children were just as prejudiced as older children and adults.

Is this just something about white attitudes toward black people? They did the same experiment with white and Asian faces. Although Asians aren't stereotypically angry, children also associated Asian faces with anger. Then the researchers tested Asian children in Taiwan with exactly the same white and Asian faces. The Asian children were more likely to think that angry faces were white. They also associated the out-group with anger, but for them the out-group was white.

Was this discrimination the result of some universal, innate tendency or were preschoolers subtly learning about discrimination? For black children, white people are the out-group. But, surprisingly, black children (and adults) were the only ones to show no bias at all; they categorized the white and black faces in the same way. The researchers suggest that this may be because black children pick up conflicting signals—they know that they belong to the black group, but they also know that the white group has higher status.

These findings show the deep roots of group conflict. But the last study also suggests that somehow children also quickly learn about how groups are related to each other.

Here's a question. There are two groups, Zazes and Flurps. A Zaz hits somebody. Who do you think it was, another Zaz or a Flurp?

It's depressing, but you have to admit that it's more likely that the Zaz hit the Flurp. That's an understandable reaction for an experienced, world-weary reader of The Wall Street Journal. But here's something even more depressing—4-year-olds give the same answer.

In my last column, I talked about some disturbing new research showing that preschoolers are already unconsciously biased against other racial groups. Where does this bias come from? [. . .]

In 2012 she asked young children about the Zazes and Flurps. Even 4-year-olds predicted that people would be more likely to harm someone from another group than from their own group. So children aren't just biased against other racial groups: They also assume that everybody else will be biased against other groups. And this extends beyond race, gender and religion to the arbitrary realm of Zazes and Flurps. [. . .]

But in the new study, Dr. Rhodes asked similar moral questions about the Zazes and Flurps. The 4-year-olds said it would always be wrong for Zazes to hurt the feelings of others in their group. But if teachers decided that Zazes could hurt Flurps' feelings, then it would be OK to do so. Intrinsic moral obligations only extended to members of their own group.

The 4-year-olds demonstrate the deep roots of an ethical tension that has divided philosophers for centuries. We feel that our moral principles should be universal, but we simultaneously feel that there is something special about our obligations to our own group, whether it's a family, clan or country.

"You've got to be taught before it's too late / Before you are 6 or 7 or 8 / To hate all the people your relatives hate," wrote Oscar Hammerstein. Actually, though, it seems that you don't have to be taught to prefer your own group—you can pick that up fine by yourself. But we do have to teach our children how to widen the moral circle, and to extend their natural compassion and care even to the Flurps.

Larry Gopnik: And... what happened to the goy?
Rabbi Nachtner: The goy? Who cares?

Or, if you prefer non-fiction, Alison's brother Adam has a heartwarming essay about how he learned to look past "impaled Iranians" to find humor in the Book of Esther and learn the true meaning of Purim.

"Rabbi," I began, "I was not raised as an observant Jew, but I am nonetheless of a Jewish background, and I am naturally concerned to show some grasp of a tradition that, though familiar in spirit, is still alien to me in many ways." I don't know; that's how I thought you ought to talk to a rabbi. Anyway, I eventually explained that I couldn't make head or tail of the Book of Esther.

"It's a spoof, a burlesque, really," he almost mumbled. He picked up my Bible, riffled through it as though there were a kind of satisfaction just in touching the pages, and then frowned. "This is a Christian Bible," he said, genuinely puzzled. [. . .]

It's a light book with a serious message. [. . .] Esther is the comic book, a book for court Jews, with a fairy-tale, burlesque spirit." [. . .]

"It is?" I said.

"Yes. You see, Mordecai is a classic Jew of the Diaspora, not just exiled but entirely assimilated--a court Jew, really. It's a book for court Jews. [. . .] The worldliness and the absurdity are tied together--the writer obviously knows that the king is a bit of idiot--but the point is that good can rise from it in any case. Esther acts righteously and saves her people, and we need not worry, too much, about what kind of Jew she was before or even after. [. . .] This is the godless, comic book of Jews in the city and how they struggle to do the righteous thing."

I was stunned. This was, as they say, the story of my life. A funny book about court Jews...I had been assigned to burlesque it when the text was preburlesqued, as jeans might be preshrunk.

We talked for a while longer, about the background of Haman as a Jew hater, and of how the most startlingly contemporary thing in the book was the form of anti-Semitism; even twenty-five hundred years ago in Persia, the complaint against the Jews was the same as it is now. ["chief councillor, Haman, decides to start a pogrom against the Jews, for all the usual reasons: They are tight and clannish and obey only themselves."] In the end, the rabbi gave me a signed copy of the Bible, the Jewish Bible, the Tanach. (Signed by him, I mean.)

We got together a couple of times after that, and eventually I decided to try and go ahead with the Purimspiel. He said, "Why not? What have you got to lose?" [. . .]

In the ballroom of the Waldorf-Astoria, hundreds of people in dinner jackets and sequined dresses were wearing masks, although this made them look less festive than vaguely embarrassed, as though they were worried about being seen by their friends. I had forgotten the look and feel of a New York benefit [. . .]

What did I tell them? Well, I did the "New York as Persia, Donald and Ivana" bit ["Ahasuerus was Donald Trump: dumb as an ox, rich, lecherous, easily put out, and living in a gaudy apartment."], and then I did a bit I'd made up that afternoon on Haman. That got a modest laugh, and, encouraged, I went on to do the "man goes to see a rabbi" bit. I said that, once I'd thought of transposing the story to New York, I had gotten stuck on Moredecai. Who could Mordecai be in the modern city? I had gone to see a rabbi, and the rabbi had told me that the Book of Esther was in part a spoof, a burlesque: a comedy in which worldly people took risks and did unworldly things, and that Mordecai, if he was anyone, was us--the assimilated court and city Jews. And this was sort of amazing to me [. . .] But I saw now that there was a connection between a certain kind of comedy, the comedy of assimilation, and a certain kind of courage, the courage to use your proximity to power, bought at the price of losing your "identity," to save your kinsmen. The real moral center of the story, I saw now, lay in the tiny, heartbreaking, and in many ways comic moment when Esther--trayf-eating, dim-witted, overdressed, sexy Esther--appears before the king, who hasn't found her particularly sexy lately. [. . .] But she did, and the Jews were saved, for once. [. . .]

Though I am not strangely exhilarated by my experience as a Purimspieler, I did find something significant in the Book of Esther, and I am certainly glad I did it. [. . .] Even if it was too late to be an everyday, starting Jew, one could still be, so to speak, Jewish in the clutch.

XI

THE SOCIAL SELECTION OF FERTILITY

History of the theory. Infertility in all classes, irrespective of its cause, gains social promotion. Selection the predominant cause of the inverted birth-rate. The decay of ruling classes. Contrast with barbarian societies. Heroism and the higher human faculties. The place of social class in human evolution. Analogy of parasitism among ants. Summary.

May it befall that an only begotten son maintain the ancestral home, for thus wealth is increased in a house. HESIOD, eighth century B.C.

History of the theory

WE have seen in the last chapter that among civilized peoples, both in modern and ancient times, an anomalous condition has come into existence, in which the more prosperous social classes, whom we would naturally compare to the successful and well-adapted of an animal species, reproduce their kind considerably more slowly than the socially lower classes. In the ninth chapter we had seen reason to conclude that the innate and heritable disposition has in civilized man a powerful influence upon the rate of reproduction. It is now proposed to show that a logical connexion exists between these two conclusions. It is not denied that what may be called the accidents of history have from time to time determined the social position of various types of men, and have influenced the fertility of various classes. The widespread nature of the phenomenon of the differential birth-rate, existing in great bodies of people, in different nations, and reappearing after long intervals of time in entirely different civiliza- tions, is not, however, to be explained by historical accidents. No explanation of it can be accepted, which does not flow from agencies in almost universal operation, among civilized societies of the most various types.

The theory to be here developed may be found in germ in an interesting observation noted by Francis Galton in the course of his genealogical researches; it has since been extended by several writers, step by step with the advance of our knowledge of the sociological phenomena, but neither its logical cogency, nor its im- portance to sociological theory, seem to have been ever widely grasped, and apart from a few ephemeral papers of my own, and a brief discussion in Major Darwin's recent book The Need for Eugenic Reform, it might be said to have been totally neglected.

In his book on Hereditary Genius, published in 1869, Galton considers the problem presented by the generally acknowledged fact that the families of great men tend, with unusual frequency, to die out. Of thirty-one peerages received by the judges of England, twelve were already extinct. Galton examined the family history of these thirty- one peerages, and lit upon an explanation which he rightly describes as 'Simple, adequate and novel'. A considerable proportion of the new peers and of their sons had married heiresses.

But my statistical lists showed, with unmistakable emphasis, that these marriages are peculiarly unprolific. We might have expected that an heiress, who is the sole issue of a marriage, would not be so fertile as a woman who has many brothers and sisters. Comparative infertility must be hereditary in the same way as other physical attributes and I am assured that it is so in the case of domestic animals. Consequently the issue of a peer's marriage with an heiress frequently fails and his title is brought to an end.

After giving the individual histories of these families he arrived at the following results.

(i) That out of 31 peerages there were no less than 17 in which the hereditary influence of an heiress or coheiress affected the first or second generation. That this influence was sensibly an agent producing sterility in 16 out of these 17 peerages, and the influence was sometimes shown in two, three or more cases in one peerage.

(ii) That the direct male lines in no less than 8 peerages (Galton gives the names in full) were actually extinguished through the influence of the heiresses, and that 6 others had very narrow escapes from extinction, owing to the same cause. I literally have only one case, where the race destroying influence of heiress blood was not felt.

(iii) That out of the 12 peerages that have failed in the direct male line, no less than 8 failures are accounted for by heiress marriages.

Now what of the four that remain. Lords Somers and Thurlow both died unmarried. Lord Alvanley had only two sons of whom one died unmarried. There is only his case and that of the Earl of Mansfield, out of the ten who married and whose titles have since become extinct, where the extinction may not be accounted for by heiress marriages. No one can therefore maintain, with any show of reason, that there are grounds for imputing exceptional sterility to the race of judges. The facts when carefully analysed, point very strongly in the opposite direction.

After drawing similar conclusions from other groups of peers Galton continues :

I tried the question from another side, by taking the marriages of the last peers, and comparing the numbers of the children when the mother was an heiress with those when she was not. I took precautions to exclude from the latter all cases where the mother was a coheiress, or the father an only son. Also since heiresses are not so very common, I sometimes went back two or three generations for an instance of an heiress marriage. In this way I took fifty cases of each. I give them below, having first doubled the actual results, in order to turn them into percentages.

TABLE 11.

Number of sons to each marriage.	Number of cases in which the mother was an heiress.	Number of cases in which the mother was not an heiress.
0	22	2
1	16	10
2	22	14
3	22	34
4	10	20
5	6	8
6	2	8
7	0	4

I find that among the wives of peers 100 who are heiresses have 208 sons and 206 daughters, 100 who are not heiresses have 336 sons and 284 daughters.

Every advancement in dignity is a fresh inducement to the intro- duction of another heiress into the family. Consequently, Dukes have a greater impregnation of heiress blood than Earls, and Dukedoms might be expected to be more frequently extinguished than Earldoms, and Earldoms to be more apt to go than Baronies. Experience shows this to be most decidedly the case. Sir Bernard Burke in his preface to the Extinct Peerages states that all the English Dukedoms created from the commencement of the reign of Charles II are gone, excepting 3 that are merged in Royalty, and that only 11 Earldoms remain out of the many created by the Normans, Plantagenets and Tudors. It is with much satisfaction that I have traced and, I hope finally disposed of, the cause why families are apt to become extinct in propor- tion to their dignity chiefly so, on account of my desire to show that able races are not necessarily sterile, and secondly because it may put an end to the wild and ludicrous hypotheses that are frequently started to account for their extinction.

Alphonse de Candolle after noting these remarkable researches, and properly distinguishing between the extinction of the family and that of the male line, reasonably observes that similar conclusions must apply to the rich and affluent classes in general.

La difference do fecondite des heritiercs et non heritieres anglaises est si grande qu'elle avertit d'une cause, jusqu'a present inconnue, du petit nombre des naissances dans les families aisees ou riches, de la noblesse et de la bourgeoisie. En general, les filles riches so marient aisement et selon toutes les probabilites physiologiques, confirmees par les faits que Monsieur Galton a decouverts, ce sont elles qui ont la plus petite chance de laisser des descendants. Leur proportion doit done diminuer Faugmentation de population des classes qui vivent dans Faisance.

Unfortunately M. de Candolle associates this rational explanation of the relative infertility of the upper classes with others such as that of Herbert Spencer, which evidently belong to the category to which Galton had hoped to put an end. Nor is it quite clear that he grasped the point of Galton' s argument, which is not so much that heiresses can marry more easily than other girls, but that they may more reason- ably aim at a marriage which is socially advantageous, and so are liable to mingle their tendencies to sterility with the natural abilities of exceptionally able men.

In a brief but important note contributed in 1913 to the Eugenics Review, J. A. Cobb has given reasons for believing that the case of heiresses, observed by Galton, is but a particular instance of a far more general tendency. Restricting himself to the unconscious causes of relative infertility, Mr. Cobb points out that, just as the fortune of an heiress enables her to make a socially advantageous marriage, so among the children of parents of any class, members of the smaller families will on the average commence life at a social advantage com- pared to members of larger families. Alongside the many excellent qualities which enable a family to improve its social position, relative infertility also plays its part. In this way the less fertile stocks, having the social advantage, will gradually permeate the upper classes of society, and there cause the peculiar situation in which the more fortunate and successful of mankind have the smallest birth-rate.

A quotation from Mr. Cobb's paper will enable the reader to appreciate the point of view from which this important conclusion was reached.

Eugenists agree that the rising generation is largely recruited from the less fit. This is attributed partly to the fact that the upper classes marry later and partly to the fact that apart from the question of post- ponement of marriage the upper classes are less prolific than the lower.

There can be no doubt that at the present time the smaller fertility of the upper classes is almost entirely due to artificial limitation, but there is another cause of their smaller fertility, and it is to this that I wish to direct attention. It is important for the Eugenist to know to what cause he is to attribute this smaller fertility of the upper classes ; if it is entirely due to artificial limitation, which is merely a temporary fashion, the consequences are not likely to be very serious, since the fashion for limiting the family is likely to take the usual course and spread downwards in the community, eventually equalizing the fertility in all ranks of society ; or the fashion may die out altogether when its disastrous effect on the future of the race is perceived. It seems also possible that the advantage of limiting the family will appeal more to the poor than to the rich, for an additional child is a greater burden to the poor, and perhaps eventually the artificial limitation of families will have a beneficial effect on the race by reducing the size of the families of the less efficient.

If, however, as I shall try to show, there is a natural tendency under modern conditions for the more intelligent to become less fertile, the problem is a more serious one.

If variations in fertility are inherited and the wealthier classes have for generations been put through a process of selection by which members of small families have been given an advantage over members of large families, we should expect that the wealthier classes would, as a whole, be less fertile than the poorer classes.

There must be some general cause which prevents the average intelligence in a civilized community from advancing beyond a certain point. That cause seems to me to be the grading of society according to a standard of wealth. This puts in the same class the children of comparatively infertile parents and the men of ability, and their inter- marriage has the result of uniting sterility and ability.

Infertility in all classes, irrespective of its cause, gains social promotion

In the development of the theory by the three writers quoted, it is evident that the progress made has consisted almost entirely in the extension of the application of the principle to a wider and wider range of social classes. This evidently followed merely from the extension of our knowledge of the classes in which an inverted birth- rate manifested itself. Galton was thinking principally of titled families, because he was aware that among these the extinction of the title took place with surprising frequency; De Candolle was aware that a low birth-rate also characterized the rich bourgeois class, and perceived immediately that the principle which Galton had discovered, in the genealogies of titled families, must apply with equal force wherever social position was greatly influenced by inherited capital. It is probable that Cobb was not aware, in 1913, that the results of the census in 1911, in Great Britain, showed that the inversion was strongly developed, even in the poorest class ; but he evidently has no hesitation in believing that it characterized the great mass of the population, and his note has the great merit of applying the principle to classes in which inherited wealth is relatively unimportant. That the economic situation in all grades of modern societies is such as favours the social promotion of the less fertile is clear, from a number of familiar considerations. In the wealthiest class, the inherited property is for the most part divided among the natural heirs, and the wealth of the child is inversely proportioned to the number of the family to which he belongs. In the middle class the effect of the direct inheritance of wealth is also important ; but the anxiety of the parent of a large family is increased by the expense of a first-class education, besides that of professional training, and by the need for capital in entering the professions to the best advantage. At a lower economic level social status depends less upon actually inherited capital than upon expenditure on housing, education, amusements, and dress ; while the savings of the poor are depleted or exhausted, and their prospects of economic progress often crippled, by the necessity of sufficient food and clothing for their children. These obvious facts are corroborated by the arguments upon which the limitation of families is advocated ; of these by far the most weighty is the parent's duty of giving to his children the best possible start in life, and the consequent necessity both of savings, and of expendi- ture an argument at least as forcible for the poor as for the rich.

Selection the predominant cause of the inverted birth-rate

It has been shown in Chapter IX that not merely physiological infertility, but also the causes of low reproduction dependent upon voluntary choice, such as celibacy, postponement of marriage, and birth limitation by married couples, are also strongly influenced by hereditary factors. The inclusion of the hereditary elements responsible for these, to which are certainly due the greater part of the variance in reproduction among civilized men, multiplies many-fold the efficacy of the selective principle at work. We have seen in particular that hereditary differences in the mental and moral quali- ties affecting reproduction, must be of such a magnitude as to produce considerable evolutionary changes, in the course of relatively short historical periods, and that such changes have in fact taken place in the moral temperament of peoples known to have been exposed to the selective action of voluntary family limitation. Consequently it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that, in a society in which members of small families are on the average at a social advantage compared to members of large families, the parents being in other respects equivalent, society will become graded, not only in respect of physiological infertility, but much more rapidly and more steeply graded in respect of those temperamental differences which conduce to celibacy, postponement of marriage and birth limitation.

This inclusive character of the theory when fully developed serves to explain a characteristic of differential reproduction, which would otherwise be quite unintelligible, namely that all the sociological factors into which differential reproduction can be analysed, alike exert their influence in the same direction. If any single sociological cause favoured contraceptive practices in the upper classes, as, for example, freer access to medical knowledge might be supposed to do, the effect to be expected would be a lower birth-rate to parents of a given age, partially compensated in the statistical aggregate by greater readiness to marry. -Equally, if something inherent in the occupational conditions of the better-paid classes were supposed to induce more frequent postponement of marriage, this cause, acting alone, would be naturally accompanied by an increased birth-rate of those married in the higher age groups. What is actually observed, however, is the concurrence in the more prosperous classes, of in- creased celibacy, of higher age at marriage, and of a lower birth-rate of married persons of a given age ; and this we should expect if the effective cause of the phenomenon were the selective promotion into higher social strata of net infertility as such, irrespective of the psychological causes which have induced it.

It is possible to test in another way whether hereditary influences supply a major and controlling cause of the differential birth-rate, or a minor and subsidiary one. Even in Galton's time many causes had been suggested for the portion of the phenomenon then known, ascribing the differences in fertility to differences in social environ- ment, or to some assumed physiological connexion between infertility and the powers of the mind. Since then the list of suggestions has increased: they may be exemplified by, excess of food, which the upper social classes are presumably supposed to consume ; excess of leisure ; the stress of brain work ; the enervating influence of comfort. However baseless the supposed causes may appear to be when each is examined in detail, it is certainly possible a priori, that there might be some subtle influence, of the social environment of the more prosperous classes, really unfavourable to reproduction. The sharpest possible test between the two views would be to ascertain the relative fertilities, among men of a given social class, of those who had risen rapidly in the social scale as opposed to those who were born in that class. For, on the theory that we have to do principally with heritable factors affecting fertility, the fertility of the upper social classes must be prevented from rising by the lower fertility of those whom social promotion brings into their ranks ; the stream of demotion of the more fertile members of the upper classes being relatively a very feeble one. Consequently, the groups enjoying rapid social promotion should, on this theory be even less fertile than the classes to which they rise. If, on the contrary, the important causes were any of those to be included under 'social environment', we should confidently expect the families who rise in the social scale to carry with them some measure of the fertility of the classes from which they originated. We have seen that the differential birth-rate is strongly developed in the United States, and a test is therefore afforded by a table given by Huntington and Whitney of the average number of children per person in the American Who's Who, when the persons are subdivided according to the education they received. They are given in descend- ing order.

TABLE 12.
Estimated children per Kind of education. person.
College and Professional 2.4
College and Ph.D. 2.3
College 2.3
Normal, Business, Trade, Secretarial 2.3
Highschool 2.1
Elementary schools and home 2.1
Professional school only 1.9

As the total number of persons dealt with is about 25,000 the trend of these averages cannot possibly be ascribed to chance ; the table appears to show unmistakably, that among Americans who attain a sufficient level of eminence to be included in Who's Who, those whose social promotion has been most striking have, on the average, fewer children than those whose social promotion has been less. Such a result would appear inexplicable on any of the views that connect the differential fertility of different classes with elements in their social environment, and is a striking confirmation of one of the most unexpected consequences of the theory that the dominating cause lies in the social promotion of the relatively infertile.

Whitney and Huntington give also the results of another inquiry which bear upon the same problem. They have studied the average abilities shown by Yale students coming from families of 1, 2, 3 and up to 6 or more. They find, in general, that the average ability rises as we pass from families of one, to families of two, and so on up to the largest families. This, of course, is not at all what we should expect to find, either in England or America, if we were to test the sons of the population at large. In the population generally, the classes which furnish the largest families would certainly show the lowest average scores, whether we took a scholastic, an athletic or an intelligence test. The Yale students, however, are the sons of a selected group of the population, of persons who can afford to give their children an expensive education. This basis of selection favours the more prosperous parents, who, in so far as their prosperity is due to innate causes, will be innately abler than the general population ; but this selection of parental prosperity will be much more stringent for the parents of six or more children than for the parents of one only. Remembering that the only child may be expected to have a better start in life ceteris paribus than the member of a family of six, we may perhaps expect to find at Yale the only children of less suc- cessful parents educated at equal expense and side by side with the children of the more stringently selected parents, who are able, with families of six or more, still to send them to Yale.

It is in fact a necessary consequence of our theory of the social selection of fertility, that, whereas in the population at large fertility must become negatively correlated with such characters as intelli- gence, which conduce to social promotion, yet, if we could select a group of children about to enter the world with absolutely equal social opportunities we should find, within this group, fertility positively correlated with these characters. For parents who can give to a large family a certain level of educational advantage, could certainly have launched a smaller family with greater advantages, and must therefore possess a higher average level of qualities, apart from fertility, favourable to social promotion, than do the parents of smaller families whose children are actually receiving the same advantages.

I believe no investigation has aimed at obtaining a group in which the educational advantages provided by the parents are completely equalized, but the effect of a partial equalization, in raising the cor- relation between fertility and intelligence, is shown by some interest- ing data published by H. E. G. Sutherland and Godfrey H. Thomson in 1926. In an unselected group of 1924 elementary school children of the Isle of Wight, between the ages of 10 \ and \\\ years a correla- tion coefficient, - 0-154, with a probable error 0-023, was obtained. Since the correlation is negative and clearly significant, it appears that, with this unselected group the least intelligent children belong to the largest families. On the other hand 386 boys of the Royal Grammar School, Newcastle -on-Tyne, the intelligence quotients of which are stated to be very reliable, and 395 boys and girls of Moray House School, Edinburgh, show correlations - 0-058 0-04, and - 0-075 + 0-034 both of which, though still negative, are insignificant in magnitude. Since within the same school, even if of very definite class, much variation must exist in the social advantages with which different pupils enter life, these data leave little doubt that in a group in which these advantages were strictly equalized the correlation between fertility and intelligence would have been raised to a positive value. It is obvious that such results are opposed to any theory which implies a physiological opposition between fertility and intelligence, and are unintelligible upon the view that class differences of fertility are derived wholly or indeed largely from class environ- ment.

The decay of ruling classes

The fact of the decline of past civilizations is the most patent in history, and since brilliant periods have frequently been inaugurated, in the great centres of civilization, by the invasion of alien rulers, it is recognized that the immediate cause of decay must be the degeneration or depletion of the ruling class. Many speculative theories have been put forward in explanation of the remarkable impermanence of such classes. Before proceeding further it may be as well to consider what elements of truth these suggestions may contain.

The Comte de Gobineau, to whose active mind the decline of civilizations presented itself as the greatest of human problems, believed that the disappearance of the original aristocracies was universally due to race mixture. Others have not hesitated to ascribe the infertility of the upper classes to inbreeding ; but since this view is now, on the biological side, universally discredited, it need not be further considered. There was, on the other hand, nothing in Gobineau's theory of the effects of race mixture which could have been disproved by the science of his time ; if the progress of genetical knowledge has rendered his views unlikely they would still have claims to acceptance on an historical basis, were they the only avail- able explanation of the historical facts.

The general consequences of race mixture can be predicted with confidence, without particular knowledge of the factors in which the contrasted races differ. If the races and their descendants intermarry freely, the factors which are inherited independently will be recombined at random; each person of mixed race will resemble the one parental stock in respect of some factors, and the other stock in respect of others. Their general character will therefore be intermediate, but their variability will be greater than that of the original races. Moreover, new combinations of virtue and ability, and of their opposites, will appear in the mixed race, combinations which are not necessarily heterozygous, but may be fixed as permanent racial characters. There are thus in the mixed race great possibilities for the action of selection. If selection is beneficent, and the better types leave the greater number of descendants, the ultimate effect of mix- ture will be the production of a race, not inferior to either of those from which it sprang, but rather superior to both, in so far as the advantages of both can be combined. Unfavourable selection, on the other hand, will be more rapidly disastrous to a mixed race than to its progenitors. It should of course be remembered that all existing races show very great variability in respect of hereditary factors, so that selections of the intensity to which mankind is exposed would be capable of producing rapid changes, even in the purest existing race.

It does not seem unreasonable to conjecture that within each of the great divisions of mankind, internal adaptations or adjustments, between the different faculties of the mind and body, have been established during the long ages of selection under which these races were originally formed. If this were true, the crossing of widely different races would disturb this internal harmony and put the mixed race at an initial disadvantage, from which, even under favourable selection, it might take several generations to recover. The theory of Gobineau depends upon the effect of intermixture of a ruling aristocracy, which Gobineau invariably traces to the European stock, to whose merits he ascribes the progress and stability of all civilizations, with a mixed and coloured people inhabiting one of the great and ancient centres of population, such as China proper, or the valleys of the Ganges, the Euphrates or the Nile. Apart from his assumption of the racial origin of the rulers, the historical importance of such cases cannot be doubted ; and it is in all respects probable that, as intermixture progressed, the ruling class, in the absence of selection, would entirely change its character ; the qualities by which it had been distinguished would be diffused among those of the more numerous race, and in the absence of native ability, 'could no longer achieve the great results, for which, concentrated in a ruling class, they were originally responsible. Nevertheless, granting that the process of racial diffusion sets a certain term to any civilization which depends upon the virtues of an alien minority, it remains to be explained why great civilizations should be assumed always to rest upon so precarious a foundation. If the peoples of the world's great centres of ancient population are inherently incapable of producing of themselves a great and vigorous civilization, an explanation of so remarkable a fact is certainly required. We cannot reasonably be satisfied by accepting it as an accident, that the great civilizing races should have originally occupied only those regions of the earth, where civilization was for so long unknown.

It has been suggested that the disappearance of ruling races of foreign origin in ancient civilizations was due to the selective influence of the climate. This theory stands in the same position as that of race mixture, in respect of the main criticism to which the latter is exposed. It does not explain why the foreign element should be necessary. Apart from this it certainly appears to be a real factor in the situation. Races exposed to a new climate, and to unfamiliar diseases, are certainly in some cases at a disadvantage as regards their death-rate, and probably also as regards their birth-rate. As are the negroes in centres of population infected with tuberculosis, or Euro- peans in regions suffering from uncontrolled malaria.

In one respect the theory of selection by climate and disease ap- pears to possess an advantage over that of race mixture. If the latter were the only agency at work, the disappearance of the ruling class would be accompanied by a permanent improvement of the natives. The effect of successive conquests should accumulate; so that we should expect that a people, such as the Egyptians, should be reasonably far advanced towards the type of a ruling race. The reverse appears to be the case. The effect of the selective influence of climate and disease, on the other hand, would appear to undo completely the racial benefits of an invasion. Further consideration shows that both agencies acting together would lead to an inter- mediate result, for in the distribution of the hereditary factors, immunity to local diseases would often be combined with the qualities of the immigrants. This consideration suggests that unless selection is directed against the qualities of the ruling race as such, some permanent improvement of the native population is a necessary consequence. On the other hand beneficial selection combined with race mixture would lead to the formation of a race combining the condition of acclimatization with the valuable qualities of the in- vaders. It would seem then, from the history of ancient civilizations in the East, that the rate of reproduction has never permanently favoured the ruling classes. If we consider further that, in any ordered society, the burden of maintaining the population is likely to fall upon the parents, and that the possession of wealth is likely sooner or later to be of social advantage, it is possible to offer a rational explanation, not only of the disappearance of ruling classes of foreign origin, but of the paucity of the necessary types of ability from the indigenous population. It would seem not improbable on this view that in its origin civilization was indigenous, favoured by the natural causes which admit of a dense population ; that the most capable elements of this primitive civilization formed themselves sooner or later into the upper classes, that they were slowly imbued with those factors of heritable disposition which make for a reduced prolificacy ; and that with the consequent development of wholesale social promotion, they were, by a rapidly increasing process, eliminated from the race. Their territory, dowered with immense natural resources, and destitute of a vigorous and united government, became the natural prey of a succession of invaders. Once it is apparent that natural causes sufficiently explain the attenuation of the original rulers, the disappearance of aristocracies of foreign origin raises no new problem. The same agencies which destroyed the founders of a civilization are capable of destroying their successors ; the more easily if the unfavourable action of selection were furthered by race mixture and the influence of climate.

The belief that the mere existence of civilized conditions causes degeneracy among the races which experience them, has been held by many writers, and is strongly supported by the instances of barbarous territories which have received the civilization, and shared the decay, of some more advanced state. The people of Roman Gaul and Britain, originally hardy and warlike, were, during the decay of Roman power, scarcely more capable of supporting and safeguarding their civilization, than were the Romans ; they fell a natural prey to inferior numbers of warlike barbarians, without suffering from a foreign climate, or from intermixture with an inferior race.

No explanation of the manner in which civilization produces this deleterious effect, by reference to the inheritance of acquired characters, can now be regarded as satisfactory ; and in any case it must be doubted if the characters acquired in a state of civilization, which include habits of industry and discipline, in addition to the training of the intellectual faculties, can be regarded as unfitting a people to hold its own. It is said that luxury saps the vigour, and dependence the initiative of civilized peoples, and even if this were the unqualified truth as to the effect upon the individual of civilized life, the first generation of misfortune should restore the vigour, and give unexampled opportunities to the initiative, of a threatened people.

We know that the tide of social promotion throughout the Roman dominion must have flowed rapidly. The demand for men for the Imperial services extended freely to provincials, and in the commer- cial and industrial development of the provinces a large scope was given to the initiative of all, even in their home towns. The upper classes, and especially the wealthier of these, were certainly drawn into the vortex of a cosmopolitan society, recruiting itself extensively from the lower orders. Gauls were admitted to the Senate as early as the reign of Claudius, who first occupied Britain. With these facts in mind it is not surprising that after several hundred years absorp- tion in the Roman civilization, Britain and Gaul showed scarcely greater capacity for resistance than the older provinces. For even if the conquest of Britain was a matter of difficulty to the barbarians, the very possibility of the overthrow of an organized Romano - British society shows that very inadequate use must have been made of the resources of the island.

Contrast with barbarian societies

It appears, then, that the social selection of infertility will characterize all states of society in which (1) distinctions of social class exist ; (2) wealth is influential in determining the social position of an individual or his descendants; and (3) the economic charge of producing the next generation is borne exclusively or principally by the parents who produce them, at least in the sense that they would have been better off had they produced fewer. These conditions are of such wide application that we can have no hesitation in postulating them in all societies, ancient or modern, consisting of individuals co-operating for mutual advantage in a state of law and order. The essentially dysgenic features of the situation may, however, be expressed more aptly by saying that they are implied by the existence of a differentiation of social class in which social promotion, or demotion, is determined by the combination of two different attributes (1) socially valuable qualities, and (2) infertility. It is thus not quite exact to say that the selective agency considered must be dysgenic in any society graded according to wealth; this would imply too wide an application of the principle, for gradations of wealth in the form of the control of material property, and authority over the services of others, would seem to be inseparable from any organization of society whatever.

There have certainly existed societies, though not properly speaking civilized societies, in which the institution of social class was highly developed, in which the power and prestige of the individual rested largely upon his pedigree and kinship, in which these class distinctions were doubtless correlated with personal wealth, and in which, nevertheless, the social advantage lay with the larger families. Since in such societies we should infer from the principle of the inheritance of fertility, and the absence of any countervailing causes, that the fertility of the socially superior should be the higher, and consequently that the powerful evolutionary force, which such difference of fertility has been shown to exert, will be directed towards the increase of the qualities favourable to success in these societies, and to the qualities admired in them, their importance for the study of our theory, and for the evolutionary history of mankind, is very great.

The state of society with which we are here concerned, which may be exemplified by the primitive peoples of Northern Europe, as represented in the Icelandic Sagas, in Tacitus' description of the Germans, and probably in the Homeric poems, by the pre-Islamic Bedouin of the Arabian desert, by many, if not all, of the Turkish and Tartar peoples of the Central Asiatic steppes, and by the Polynesians of New Zealand and Samoa, is characterized by a tribal organization, influenced, or indeed dominated, by the blood feud. All these show a strong feeling for aristocratic or class distinction, and this character, as well as the blood feud, seems to be rather rare among uncivilized peoples generally. For this reason it is convenient to designate this particular type of society by a special term, which shall contrast them with civilized, and distinguish them from the other uncivilized peoples. We may conveniently call them barbarians. This term is the more appropriate in that the examples given, few as they are, include the most important groups of peoples, who have, in the course of history, overrun the great centres of relatively permanent civilization, and to whom the existing organization of society can be traced back in historical continuity.

Different civilized nations, although potentially at war with one another, may yet show essentially the same ideas, and an equivalent development of material civilization. The cultural unity of different barbarian tribes is usually much closer, for they are bound together by common language, and a common oral literature, intermarry much more frequently than can the large aggregates which constitute civilized nations, and frequent the same fairs and festivals for trade, religion or recreation. It is necessary to emphasize this unity of culture because, unlike civilized societies having comparable unity, barbarian peoples recognize private, or more properly tribal war as a normal means for avenging and checking crime. The obligation to avenge a kinsman was felt extremely keenly as a moral duty, to shirk which would be incompatible with self-respect or an easy con- science, or, in Wilfred Blunt 's forcible phrase as 'almost a physical necessity'. The existence of this obligation requires that the tribes of kinsmen to which it applies shall be somewhat sharply defined, and with this obligation follows, of course, the obligation to pay, and the right to share, blood money, or to share in booty. A certain degree of economic communism thus characterizes these kindred groups, so that there is little exaggeration in saying that the economic and the military units in such societies are made to coincide. This is at least a convenient form in which to express the contrast with all civilized societies, in which the interests of the economic unit, consisting of a single individual and his dependents, may differ widely from those of the military unit, consisting of the entire nation to which he belongs. The interests of the kindred group as a whole, whose rights to life and property can only be safeguarded by military preparedness, are of course, in the first degree, founded upon military strength, and consequently, among other qualities, upon the fertility of its members.

Social position in barbarian societies consists partly in differences in kind, partly in differences in degree. A powerful group comprises not only the body of free tribesmen of authentic, or noble, pedigree, but also dependent freemen harboured by the tribe, who may have been outlawed from their own tribes, or be the remnants of tribes too weak to stand by themselves ; further there may be unfree dependents, whose position only differs from that of the slaves of civilized societies, in lacking the protection of civil law, and, on the other hand, in differing but little from their masters in education or standard of living. It is important here that differences in social standing are at least as strongly felt among barbarian peoples, as in civilization, and that it is there based not so much on occupation, as on personal and family prestige. Such differences in prestige are not, however, confined to social distinctions within the tribe, but extend to great differences in the repute and distinction of different kindred groups, according to their exploits and power.

It will be admitted, therefore, that in such barbaric societies as we have described, well-defined class distinctions are combined with a distinct social advantage of the more prolific stocks. Nor can we doubt on independent evidence that the families of the highest repute were in fact the most prolific. The high importance given to pedigree, and the care taken to preserve the names, even of a remote ancestry, is evidence of this; for such care would not generally be taken to preserve the memory of ancestors, if these were on the average less distinguished than their descendants. We can thus understand one of the factors which enables such peoples to base their social system upon blood relationship. This evidence indicates, moreover, not only a higher birth-rate but a greater natural increase, when the death- rate also is taken into account. It may well be suspected that the most eminent families suffered in war the highest death-rate, but in the severe losses which barbarian peoples suffer in times of dearth or enforced migration, the more powerful groups would certainly be at a substantial advantage ; and if, as we have seen, selection would tend to increase their innate fertility above that of the less distinguished groups, it is not surprising that we should be led to conclude that society was derived generation after generation, predominantly from its more successful members.

The most important consequence of this conclusion is that human evolution, at least in certain very ancient states of society, has proceeded by an agency much more powerful than the direct selection of individuals, namely the social promotion of fertility into the superior social strata. In particular, it is important that the qualities recognized by man as socially valuable, should have been the objective of such a selective agency, for it has hitherto only been possible to ascribe their evolutionary development to the selection of whole organized groups, comparable to the hives of the social insects. The selection of whole groups is, however, a much slower process than the selection of individuals, and in view of the length of the generation in man the evolution of his higher mental faculties, and especially of the self-sacrificing element in his moral nature, would seem to require the action of group selection over an immense period. Among the higher human faculties must moreover be counted the power of aesthetic appreciation of, or emotional response to, those qualities which we regard as the highest in human nature. It will aid the reader to weigh the efficacy of the social advantage of fertility in barbarous societies, if we analyse in more detail its re- actions upon a single group of qualities typical of barbarian culture.

Heroism and the higher human faculties

The social ideas of all peoples known to us in the stage of emergence from the barbaric condition are dominated by the conception of heroism, and civilized peoples normally look back to so-called 'heroic ages' in which this conception moulded to an important degree the structure of society. The emotional influence of this idea has been so great, especially through the poetic tradition, that it is difficult to give a technically accurate characterization of the phenomenon without using terms charged with rhetorical associations. The reader must remember that we are not concerned to evaluate heroism either through praise or disparagement, but merely to consider its nature and implications as a sociological phenomenon.

The hero is one fitted constitutionally to encounter danger; he therefore exercises a certain inevitable authority in hazardous enter- prises, for men will only readily follow one who gives them some hope of success. Hazardous enterprises, however, are not a necessity save for the men who, as enemies or leaders, make them so, and the high esteem in which tradition surrounds certain forms of definite im- prudence cannot be ascribed to any just appreciation of the chances of success. In modern times it is obvious that a man with any immoderate heritage of this quality has an increased probability of perishing young in some possibly useful border expedition, besides an increased probability of entering an occupation not easily to be reconciled with family life. It is undeniable that current social selection is unfavourable to heroism, at least in that degree which finds it sweet as well as proper to give one's life for his country. Any great war will reveal, I believe, a great fund of latent heroism in the body of almost any people, though any great war must sensibly diminish this fund. No one will, however, doubt that in respect of prudence, long civilized peoples do differ materially from those races in which the highest personal ambition of almost every man was to win renown through heroic achievement.

An examination of the action of selection in barbarous societies in the tribal condition, reveals the possibility of the selection of the heroic qualities beyond the limits set by prudence, by a method analogous to that used in Chapter VII to explain the evolution of distasteful qualities in insect larvae. The mere fact that the prosperity of the group is at stake makes the sacrifice of individual lives occasionally advantageous, though this, I believe, is a minor consideration compared with the enormous advantage conferred by the prestige of the hero upon all his kinsmen. The material advantage of such prestige in barbarous society will, I think, scarcely be questioned ; it is evident in all the heroic literature ; it is directly evidenced by the deliberate vaunting of tribal achievements by professional poets; equally convincing is the great importance attached to genealogy in all such societies, by which the living boast their descent from the mighty dead. The positive aim before the hero is undying fame, he is therefore bound to all that is of good repute ; to the heroic spirit all material achievements are of lesser importance. Equally important with the phenomenon of heroism itself is the esteem in which it is held.

It is inevitable in a tribal state of society that certain stocks should distinguish themselves above others in the heroic qualities. If we may assume that such qualities do in fact benefit their tribesmen, which benefit can be most readily understood through the effects of prestige, then in a tribal society heroism may become a predominant quality. In this matter sexual selection seems in man to have played a most important role. I do not here specially stress the evidence of the poetic tradition, which, in spite of the reputation of poets for effemi- nacy, insists on associating heroism with true love. I should rather rely on the actual marriage customs of barbarous peoples. It should be emphasized that in such marriages the political element is more in evidence than the romantic, without their being the less dominated by the emotional reactions. A marriage is likely to involve blood feud obligations ; union with a powerful kindred is an essential asset. The corporate tribe is interested in the match, and sexual selection is most powerfully exerted by tribal opinion. The prestige of the con- tracting parties is all-important, and while this is partly personal, it also is largely tribal. The wooer relies upon his reputation even for the decision of the lady herself. Both in the Icelandic sagas and in the pre-Islamic poems, marriages are nearly always prompted by the political aspirations of the parties.

Such sexual selection by public opinion must influence many other qualities besides valour. Beauty, highmindedness and every other highly esteemed quality must be thereby enhanced. Its importance for us is that it influences the esteem in which the group of qualities most closely associated with heroism are held. Just as the power of discrimination of the female bird has been shown to be influenced by sexual selection pari passu with the ornaments which she appreciates, so in a barbarous society, in which the heroic qualities do possess an intrinsic tribal advantage, the power to appreciate and the proneness to admire such qualities will be enhanced, so long at least as reproduc- tion is actually greatest in the predominant families. The reader who will candidly compare the current attitude towards rash actions in any long civilized society with that among the peoples under dis- cussion, will scarcely doubt that the hero-worship of barbarous peoples was in fact a mental attitude which, however useless to modern man, played in their lives a very essential part. Changed conditions which have reversed the advantage of the heroic qualities, have also reversed the advantage of being able to recognize and appreciate them. It is obvious that the barbarous element in the tradition of our culture is that which emphasizes and indeed exag- gerates, the natural inequality of man, whereas the religious and legal elements emphasize his civil equality. From the fact that the bar- barians valued more highly certain qualities of human character, it is a fair inference that they perceived such differences more clearly than do civilized men. Direct evidence on this point is necessarily elusive. On questions on which we are better informed than our ancestors it is easy for us to perceive the evidences of our advantage. If the reverse were the case, it would be easier for our ancestors than for ourselves to point out the difference. The only objective fact known to me relevant to the present issue is that moderns with highly trained powers of appreciation do find in the earliest examples of extant poetry a certain elusive quality in the delineation of character, which gives to such verse a recognizable supremacy in the particular literature to which it belongs.

It is, of course, difficult to distinguish between non-percipience and indifference to the distinctions perceived. The antipodes to the spontaneous choice of emotional passion is exhibited in the account given by Risley of the importance of a University degree in the Bengalese marriage market. The successful candidate who emerges with an M.A. becomes instantly, and in virtue of this alien qualifica- tion, a highly eligible match, and may collect in a few months a series of endowered brides. It would be difficult to decide whether this throwing upon the board of examiners the onus of grading the candidates in sexual selection is due to those personal differences, which still to some extent influence European lovers, being but faintly perceived, or, although perceived, to their being esteemed of much less real importance than the University degree.

Among peoples with a considerable contribution of the barbarous element in their social tradition the predominant non-personal factor in mate selection is social class. Social class may, as we have seen, be best defined as a synthesis of such distinctions as wealth, occupation, and family as influence eligibility in marriage, taking account of these distinctions only in so far as they do in fact influence such eligibility. Historically this distinction of social class is continuous with the political and romantic prestige of the predominant clans. It is thus not an accident that the social ostentation of earlier days should survive most conspicuously in weddings. The attenuation and decay of the sentiment of class distinction is the necessary concomitant of the progressive elimination of those elements of the population which enjoy the higher rank. It will be readily understood, if the supposition is correct that among barbarian peoples the pre- dominant class did in fact enjoy a selective advantage, that aristo- cratic institutions should appear to peoples recently civilized to be based on natural justice.

To summarize the points of sociological importance: (i) A bar- barian people organized in kindred groups and recognizing the blood feud as the principle of social cohesion, can scarcely fail to experience a selection in favour of two qualities on which the success of the kindred group principally depends (a) the public spirited, patriotic, or heroic disposition (b) fertility, (ii) The stratification of society in these two qualities implies a selective advantage of the heroic temperament beyond the optimum advantage ascribable to prudent boldness, by reason of the social advantage of fame or heroic reputation, (iii) The power of recognizing the heroic qualities, and of conscious choice in intermarriage, introduces the dual effect of sexual selection in intensifying both the qualities selected and the communal recognition and appreciation of such qualities, (iv) This selection of the popular emotional response to the heroic qualities has the important effects of (a) stabilizing the foundations of the system by strengthening the existing basis of social cohesion, (b) intensifying the selective advantage ascribable to fame or prestige, (c) increasing the selective advantage of all qualities consciously envisaged in sexual selection, (d) exaggerating the realities of natural inequality by the development of an extreme aristocratic doctrine of hereditary nobility. It is important to notice that such practices as polygamy or servile concubinage are not in any sense primary principles of the system of causes described, but may be grafted into the system in so far as they harmonize with the prestige of the hero, or the fertility of his class. Such practices necessarily decay or are transformed to fulfil a secondary social purpose, such as domestic service, as soon as the main conditions of the system are undermined.

The place of social class in human evolution

The combination of conditions which allows of the utilization of differential fertility for the acceleration of evolutionary changes, either progressive or destructive, seems to be peculiar to man. It requires a social organism, and one which is individualistic in repro- duction. Accessory factors of great importance are the elasticity of effective fertility, introduced by infanticide and other methods of family limitation, and the peculiarly heavy burden of parental care occasioned by the extraordinary long childhood of the human race. Up to a certain stage, which was almost certainly prehuman, the ancestors of man were doubtless solitary animals, and until social life began to be developed their fertility must have been stabilized at or near the optimum appropriate to the requirements of parental care. It is to be presumed that infanticide came to be practised, in consequence of an increasing foresight of impending hardships, at an exceedingly remote period, perhaps early in man's history as a social animal. During the immense period of early social life he appears to have learnt to co-operate with his fellows, probably by sympathy with their expressed emotions, instinctively to shun social opprobrium, and perhaps to improve his chances of posterity by mate selection. The sentiment of preference, seems at least so essential to the sexual instincts of man that it is difficult to doubt that sexual selection was early established in mankind, though it may be that the special conditions experienced by their barbarian ancestors prejudices the opinion of civilized man in this matter. Apart from this factor, the evolution of man in the early social stages must have been directed principally towards the establishment of the characteristics favouring individual survival in the social environment.

At some stage, the period of which it would be useless to conjecture, societies must have come into existence, in which some degree of continuity of social class was ensured by the inheritance of property, privilege, prestige or social function, and in which individual differences in the socially valuable qualities were strongly appreciated, and allowed to contribute towards the assessment of social rank. If these characteristics, perhaps in quite a rudimentary form, were combined with a tribal organization of society, in which the rights of each kindred group were established ultimately upon its military power, so that the most fertile were mingled with the most admired or eminent strains in the predominant clans, a profound change must have come over the speed and direction of evolutionary progress in such societies. The new force acted through, and by means of, man's appreciation of human excellence in his fellow men. This appreciation, both in the social selection, and in the sexual selection which formed a part of it, was doubtless guided, from the first, by the interests of the tribal group, or of society as a whole. Such a process provides the means of relatively rapid evolutionary progress in qualities which subordinate the individual interest to that of others, the evolution of which, merely by the selective elimination of entire societies, would seem to be extraordinarily slow. It has, however, all the dangers noted in the case of sexual selection, of running into extravagance ; for the standards of taste will necessarily be modified, step by step, with the qualities to which preference is given, and it may, indeed, be that some of the virtues which appeal most to our imagination are more of the nature of ornaments than of serviceable moral ideals. Among the qualities which seem to have been extravagantly developed among all barbarian peoples are personal and family pride, and, but for the sharp lessons which must always be learnt in a harsh environment, made harsher by mutual warfare, extravagances of this kind might, it would seem, have become much more common than they are in man's moral nature.

It would be of great interest, if it were possible, to compare the rapidity of progress among barbarian peoples, with that of the decline among the civilized. The variations available for evolutionary changes of a destructive nature must be so much more abundant than those available for progressive changes, that we might expect selective intensities of the same order to take some hundreds, or perhaps a thousand generations, to build up in their perfection attributes of the mind, which ten generations of adverse selection might demolish. It does not appear that there should be any great difference in the selective intensities developed in the two cases, if each were in a steady state. The effect of differences of fertility would be increased in the barbarian condition, and diminished among civilized man, by the direct action of prosperity in favouring repro- duction, and this might seem to make the favourable selection among barbarian peoples more intense than the unfavourable selection among the civilized. Against this should, I believe, be set the fact that, although uncivilized peoples, by practising infanticide, can produce as great a variation in net fertility as can birth limitation in civilized man, yet the selective effect of these differences in fertility must, in a harsh environment, be much diminished by heavier mortal- ity in infancy and childhood, so that the net differences of fertility available may be less. With respect to the action of sexual selection it might be thought that this factor, while accelerating progress among barbarians, must be retarding decay among the civilized. But this is certainly not the case in a society in which the prospects of fertility diminish with social advancement, for in such a society it will, on the average, be biologically advantageous, to make, of two possible marriages, that which is socially the less eligible. Moreover those who are most particular in the choice of a mate will most frequently dimmish their fertility by postponement of marriage or celibacy. Consequently sexual selection must be judged to intensify the speed of whichever process, constructive or degenerative, is in action. The intensity of this influence must, however, be much diminished in the later stages of civilized societies, with the decay of the appreciation of personal differences.

Analogy of parasitism among ants

The reaction of economic causes upon the distribution of fertility in human civilization is so disastrous that we could scarcely expect to find it adequately paralleled in insect societies, for among these an active intercommunal selection appears always to be possible. Never- theless the interpretation put by Forel upon the reaction of the ant Tetramorium cespitum to a rather rare parasitic ant Strongylognathus testaceus is sufficiently apposite to be compared to the human situa- tion. The structure of the parasitic ant suggests that it was formerly a slavemaker, but it is now too feeble to be an effective combatant, and the mixed colonies rely for defence upon the host workers. The parasite neuters, though able to excavate and to feed independently, contribute little or nothing to the structure of the nest, and probably obtain most of their food from the tongues of the hosts. They take no part in the care of the young, even of their own queen, and, being thus apparently a survival useless to their own species, it is not surprising that they are produced in relatively scanty numbers compared to the males and queens, which are very small and produced in abundance. The sexual forms of the host, on the other hand, are relatively enormous, since the queens have to supply the biological capital for founding new and independent colonies. In most cases of ant parasitism the mother of the parasitized community is in some manner or other eliminated, and the parasitism consists in the ex- ploitation of the social instincts of the surviving workers for rearing an alien brood. The case under consideration is peculiar in that it appears to be well established that the host queen continues to live and, in addition to the parasite queen, to lay, in the parasitized colony ; but that in this condition she never produces fertile females, the parasites thus gaining a continual supply of host workers to house, feed, educate and defend them, while the fertile queens issuing from the nest are of the parasite species only. Forel ascribes this remarkable condition to the regulatory or economic instincts of the host workers, for the females and males of the parasite are smaller and less troublesome to nourish. This, he says, is evidently sufficient to induce the host workers to rear them in place of their own enormous queens and males, the larvae of which they therefore undoubtedly devour or neglect, as they do in the case of all that seems to be superfluous.

Whether or not Forel is right in this interpretation, his suggestion illustrates well the effect of economic law, if allowed blindly to act in the regulation of fertility. Since the parasites are found in only a small proportion of the Tetramorium nests, these insects have pre- sumably some defensive instincts, which usually succeed in resisting infestation. In human societies man is his own parasite, a circum- stance which seems to ensure that all civilized societies shall be fully infested.

Summary

In accordance with the theory, developed with successive extensions by Galton, De Candolle, and J. A. Cobb, it is shown that the inversion of the birth-rate is a consequence of two causes which have now been fully demonstrated: (i) The inheritance of the characters, whether physical or psychological, determining reproduction ; (ii) The social promotion of the less fertile. The various theories which have sought to discover in wealth a cause of infertility, have missed the point that infertility is an important cause of wealth.

In the light of this theory we can understand how it is that the more prosperous classes, not only have fewer children when married and at a given age, but that they also tend to marry later in life, and to remain more frequently celibate, than do less prosperous classes. We can understand how it is, although the poorer classes generally have more children than the rich, yet that persons of distinction, who have enjoyed great social promotion, are found to have fewer children than persons of equal distinction who have been less promoted. Again, although among the general population the larger families of the less successful classes produce a negative correlation between the ability of a child, measured in various ways, and the size of the family to which he belongs, yet in selected groups of children, chosen as receiv- ing more equal social opportunities, we should expect to find, as indeed is found, with the Yale students, and to a less degree with some middle -class English schools, that the correlations tend to be raised to a positive value. All these facts would be highly paradoxical upon the view that the differences in fertility were the direct result of differences in social environment.

In the problem of the decay of ruling classes it is shown that neither race -mixture, nor the selective action of climate and disease, would suffice to explain their failure under favourable selection. The causes to which we have traced the inversion of fertility must have been operative in the most ancient civilizations, as in our own, and serve to explain the historical importance of ruling races, through the absence of the proper attributes in the native populations. The same causes ensure an adverse selection acting upon each conquering people in turn.

The decline of barbarian peoples, which have received the civiliza- tion, and shared the decay, of some more advanced state, without suffering from a foreign climate or from intermixture with an inferior race, is intelligible by the social promotion and extinction of their more capable members.

Certain uncivilized peoples characterized by a tribal organization, the blood feud, and the importance attached to kinship and pedigree, exhibit a state of society in which the more eminent are certainly the more fertile, and in which the effects of Natural Selection are greatly enhanced by social and sexual selection. The action of these factors is of particular importance in respect of the qualities recognized by man as socially valuable, which have, in this way, received a selective advantage very much greater than any which could be ascribed to the differential elimination of entire tribes. The group of qualities under- stood by these barbarian peoples as associated with heroism has thus been developed considerably beyond the optimum of individual advantage. The higher mental qualities of man, and especially his appreciation of them, seem to be ascribable to the social selection of this type of society.

The selection in favour of the qualities admired among barbarian peoples was probably almost as intense as that in the opposite direc- tion among the civilized. The destructive effect of the adverse selection on these qualities, must, however, be much more rapid than the process by which they were built up.

If the opinion of Forel be accepted as to the reaction of the host ant Tetramorium Cespitum to its parasite Strongylognathus testaceus the situation established in parasitized colonies bears some analogy to the economic reactions of civilized man towards reproduction. Whereas, however, the majority of Tetramorium nests keep themselves free from parasites, human societies inevitably show the necessary variations to ensure their own infestation.

The Southern California Genealogical Society announces its schedule of live-streamed sessions of the 2013 Southern California Genealogy Jamboree. The "JamboSTREAM" webcast is free to viewers and is made available through the gracious support of Ancestry.com. [. . .]

Sessions to be live streamed include:

Friday, June 7 [. . .]

4:30 PM to 6:00 PM
FR022: DNA Panel Discussion - Hear it from the Experts.
CeCe Moore; Alice Fairhurst; Ken Chanine PhD; Joanna Mountain PhD; Bennett Greenspan
Co-Sponsored by International Society of Genetic Genealogy

Perhaps most revealing is what Pizarro calls the “Kill Whitey” study. This was a footbridge problem — two variations on a footbridge problem in one, actually — that the team presented to 238 California undergrads. The undergrads were of mixed race, ethnicity and political leanings. Before they faced the problem, 87 percent of them said they did not consider race or nationality a relevant factor in moral decisions. Here the paper‘s (.pdf) description of the problem they faced:

[. . .] Half of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named “Tyrone Payton” to save 100 members of the New York Philharmonic, and the other half received a version where the agent could choose to sacrifice “Chip Ellsworth III” to save 100 members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra. In both scenarios the individual decides to throw the person onto the trolley tracks.

[. . .] Turned out the racial identities did indeed color peoples’ judgments — but it colored them differently depending on their political bent. Pizarro, who describes himself as a person who “would probably be graded a liberal on tests,” roughly expected that liberals would be more consistent. Yet liberals proved just as prejudiced here as conservatives were, but in reverse: While self-described conservatives more readily accepted the sacrifice of Tyrone than they did killing Chip, the liberals were easier about seeing Chip sacrificed than Tyrone. [. . .]

They offered some other scenarios too, about collateral damage in military situations, for instance, and found similar differences: Conservatives accepted collateral damage more easily if the dead were Iraqis than if they were Americans, while liberals accepted civilian deaths more readily if the dead were Americans rather than Iraqis.

What did this say about people’s morals? Not that they don’t have any. It suggests that they had more than one set of morals, one more consequentialist than another, and choose to fit the situation. [. . .]

Or as Pizarro told me on the phone, “The idea is not that people are or are not utilitarian; it’s that they will cite being utilitarian when it behooves them. People are aren’t using these principles and then applying them. They arrive at a judgment and seek a principle.”

Taken together then, the results of our Chip and Tyrone studies show good evidence of motivated recruitment of moral principles, at least among political liberals. But why were the effects limited to our liberal participants (in two different studies using two different moral dilemmas and two different study samples)? Our speculation is that egalitarian considerations, especially those relevant to race, play a greater role in influencing liberals’ judgments compared to conservatives. A recent meta-analysis by Jost et al. (2003) indicates that one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives lies in conservative’s greater tolerance for social inequality. Research on the moral foundations underlying liberal and conservative ideologies also suggests that fairness concerns are particularly acute for political liberals (Haidt and Graham, 2007), and race is likely the key symbol evoking these concerns in contemporary America. As such, we believe that this particular situation simply held more motivational power for liberals than conservatives. Our Chip–Tyrone manipulation faced liberals with choices sure to alert their sensitivity to inequality, and they likely felt more negative affect when asked to sacrifice a Black life than a White life (especially a White person with a vaguely aristocratic-sounding name). Conservatives, on the other hand, not overtly prejudiced but simply lacking liberals’ highly accessible intuitions regarding inequality, tended to respond in a more evenhanded fashion (both affectively and cognitively). This pattern is consistent with a number of recent studies (e.g., Norton et al., 2004) showing that college student samples (which are often skewed liberal) tend to show what might be called a ‘‘political correctness’’ bias in racial issues.

This paper studies the political economy of fertility. I particularly ask whether fertility may be a strategic choice for ethnic groups engaged in redistributive conflict.1 There are at least two reasons why the answer could be affirmative. First, individuals in diverse societies tend to vote for co-ethnic political candidates, who then reward them with transfers, jobs, or local public goods (Young 1976, Bates 1981). Fertility should therefore increase an ethnic group’s voting power and gains from political office. Second, if ethnic groups allocate society’s resources via conflict or bargaining in the shadow of conflict (Horowitz 2000, Collier and Hoeffler 2004), then fertility might increase their combat strength.2 Importantly, however, these redistributive gains to fertility should mainly be present where weak institutions erode the security of property rights.

To further explore these issues, this paper presents a simple model of redistributive ethnic conflict with endogenous fertility. I then test the model in a cross-national dataset. Consistent with the theory, I find that economies with high ethnic diversity and/or weak institutions have higher fertility rates. I conclude that high fertility may have political roots.

Hernstein and Murray (1994) famously argued that the division of labor in modern society is determined by individual differences in cognitive ability. This paper shows that differences in cognitive ability can also determine the division of labor in poor urban areas. We estimate the effect of IQ on time-to-first gang participation with data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97) and Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN). Results from both the NLSY97 and PHDCN indicate that low-IQ is a robust predictor of gang participation. There are two plausible explanations of this main finding: (1) low-IQ individuals may have comparative advantage in violence as their opportunity costs of engaging in legal activities are low and (2) gangs may prefer low-IQ individuals as a way to reduce agency costs. We find strong evidence in support of the hypothesis that persons with lower IQs have comparative advantage in criminal activity in the PHDCN dataset. Highlights

► This paper shows that cognitive ability can determine the division of labor in poor urban areas. ► We estimate the effect of IQ on time-to-first gang participation with data from U.S. data. ► Results indicate low-IQ is a robust predictor of gang participation. ► A person's relative IQ, with respect to one's neighborhood peers, determines gang participation.

• Can racial differences in circulating testosterone explain racial differences in crime?
• What explains racial differences in crime?
• More on race, crime, and intelligence
• Why criminals are less intelligent than non-criminals
• IQ, SES, and criminality

"I read the paper, understood most of it, but was basically lost trying to understand the graphs. (It's true that my math and science foundation is fairly weak.)"
-- Ta-Nehisi Coates

"Well when I was 17, I didn’t realize that my parents were poor and stupid."
-- Half Sigma

Background: Half Sigma was born to lower-middle-class Staten Island Jewish parents and blames the American class system for his failure at life. At some point he read Paul Fussell's 1983 book Class, decided this made him an expert on the subject, and started mixing up dated observations from Fussell with his own observations of the people he perceives to be his social superiors in present-day Manhattan.

Fussell could not have been any clearer on who he put in his "Top out-of-sight" category: "The top-out-of-sight class (Rockefellers, Pews, DuPonts, Mellons, Fords, Vanderbilts) lives on inherited capital entirely."

This class, as described by Fussell, barely exists today. The proportion of the richest Americans (or their children) with any particular connection to the mid-20th century or earlier American upper class is small and continually shrinking.

I just looked up the original Half Sigma "top out-of-sight" post, and his confusion is even deeper than I remembered:

The top out-of-sight upper class

A few days ago I threw out the idea that the country is run by WASPs, which I think is rather misleading and over-simplistic. It’s probably more accurate that there are several different power groups in the United States. The two most obvious power groups are the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

Searching for other power groups, one of the obvious power groups is the highest social class in the country. And to know what the highest class is, we turn to the late Paul Fussell’s book Class, and we find out that the highest class is what Fussell calls the “top out-of-sight upper class.” Fussell, unfortunately, doesn’t say much about this class, probably because he doesn’t know that much about them. The primary difference he talks about is that the regular upper class live in showy mansions and make their wealth known to the lower classes. The top out-of-sight upper class hides from public exposure.

In the movie Born Rich, directed by Jamie Johnson (which I previously blogged about), one of the important things he mentioned about his class of people is that they like their privacy and they were very opposed to him making a documentary about them. So Paul Fussell got the out-of-sight part right, although out-of-sight means that they are non-obvious rather than that you literally can never see them. The top out-of-sight is more often hiding in plain sight rather than on a private island off the coast of Maine. They might summer at such a place, although there are probably more of them summering on Nantucket.

I have personally met people from the top out-of-sight upper class, and maybe you have to. They are not rock stars, and because they are often hiding in plain sight, they are actually a lot easier to meet than upper class people who are more likely to have gatekeepers to restrict access to them. Imagine the unlikelihood of having a conversation with Donald Trump. But there are many top out-of-sight upper class people living in Manhattan who you can talk to easily enough, although they won’t be interested in being your friend for the same reason you (a middle to upper middle class person) wouldn’t want to be friends with a prole.

So now I will fill in some of the gaps of this class. Of course, I don’t have much personal knowledge, so I am mostly making educated guesses.

And, yes, the "out-of-sight" part was meant literally -- referring to the houses, not the people. Half Sigma fails even at basic reading comprehension. Fussell:

No one whose money, no matter how copious, comes from his own work--film stars are an example--can be a member of the top-out-of-sight class, even if the size of his income and the extravagance of his expenditure permit him to simulate identity with it. Inheritance--"old money" in the vulgar phrase--is the indispensable principle defining the top three classes, and it's best if the money's been in the family for three or four generations. There are subtle local ways to ascertain how long the money's been there. Touring middle America, the British traveler Jonathan Raban came upon the girl Sally, who informed him that "New Money says Missouri; Old Money says Missoura."

"When I think of a really rich man," says a Boston blue-collar, "I think of one of those estates where you can't see the house from the road." Hence the name of the top class, which could just as well be called "the class in hiding." Their houses are never seen from the street or road. They like to hide away deep in the hills or way off on Greek or Caribbean islands (which they tend to own), safe, for the moment, from envy and its ultimate attendants, confiscatory taxation and finally expropriation. It was the Great Depression, Vance Packard speculates, that badly frightened the very rich, teaching them to be "discreet, almost reticent, in exhibiting their wealth." From the 1930s dates the flight of money from such exhibitionistic venues as the mansions of upper Fifth Avenue to hideaways in Virginia, upper New York State, Connecticut, Long Island, and New Jersey. [. . .]

The next class down, the upper class, differs from the top-out-of-sight class in two main ways. First, although it inherits a lot of its money, it earns quite a bit too, usually from some attractive, if slight, work, without which it would feel bored and even ashamed. It's likely to make its money by controlling banks and the more historic corporations, think tanks, and foundations, and to busy itself with things like the older universities, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Foreign Policy Association, the Committee for Economic Development, and the like, together with the executive branch of the federal government, and often the Senate.

April 25, 2013: A commemorative all-day symposium, in Kirschstein Auditorium, Natcher Conference Center, featured a group of speakers. The event, The Genomics Landscape a Decade after the Human Genome Project,looked at the accomplishments of the decade with an eye to what is on the horizon. The date of the symposium was significant, occurring in the month that the HGP was announced 10 years ago, and coinciding with the date 60 years ago when James Watson and Francis Crick's article describing DNA's double-helical structure was published. The symposium is timed with both historic achievements in mind.

The $1,000 Genome, the $1,000,000 Interpretation - Kevin Davies

African Integrative Genomics: Implications for Human Origins - Sarah Tishkoff

Progress Since the Human Genome Project

Whole Genome Sequencing in Newborn Screening - Jeff Botkin

Annotating and Understanding Genomes - Ewan Birney

The complete list of talks is available here (with slides).

In this article, I (the author) followed multiple sources in referring to 'Photo 51' as the work of Rosalind Franklin. However, medical geneticist Jim Lupski raised a query about the accuracy of the attribution, having received correspondence from Jim Watson which mentioned in passing that Ray Gosling had taken the photo.

I put the query to Gosling, who confirms that he was indeed 'Photo 51' photographer:

'It was part of the program that Rosalind and I were carrying out to check the effect of the humidity on the crystallization of DNA. This was the 51st of that program, and I was the one who took that particular diffraction pattern.'

Thanks to Jim Lupski for bringing the inaccuracy to my attention, to Ray Gosling for providing further information, and to Jim Watson for confirming that this was his understanding of events.

Wilkins began using optical spectroscopy to study DNA in the late 1940s. In 1950 he and Gosling obtained the first clearly crystalline X-ray diffraction patterns from DNA fibres, and Alec Stokes suggested that the patterns indicated that DNA was helical (spiral) in structure. [source]

Franklin's fellowship proposal called for her to work on x-ray diffraction studies of proteins in solution. However, there was a shift in research priorities after Maurice Wilkins, the assistant director of Randall's lab, began working with an unusually pure sample of DNA obtained from Rudolf Signer. Excited about the possibilities, Wilkins suggested to Randall that Franklin's expertise might be better applied to this promising DNA research. Randall agreed; he wrote to Franklin in November 1950, explaining the change of plan, and stated that she and graduate student Raymond Gosling would be the only staff doing crystallographic studies of DNA. Randall did not mention Wilkins' serious interest in DNA, nor did he tell Wilkins the details of the letter. These omissions soon generated misunderstandings between Wilkins and Franklin--Franklin assumed that the x-ray diffraction studies of DNA would be her project alone; Wilkins assumed that she was joining the loosely organized research team ("Randall's Circus") at the biophysics lab, as the expert on crystallography. When Wilkins continued working on DNA and suggested that he and Franklin collaborate, she resented what she regarded as interference. [source]

Rosalind Franklin has become such a symbolic figure that it is now hard to separate facts from myths. However, in the rush to see Franklin as wronged, it needs to be recalled that Wilkins was a senior independent scientist, had laid a lot of groundwork for the DNA work, and had obtained the actual DNA samples Franklin went on to take x-ray pictures of. All this was then essentially taken off him by the unit head (Randall) and given to Franklin. So it could be argued with a good deal of justification that the DNA project at King's was very much Wilkins' baby, and would not have existed for Franklin to take forward without years of Wilkins' groundwork. [source]

“To think that Rosy had all the 3D data for 9 months & wouldn’t fit a helix to it and there was I taking her word for it that the data was anti-helical. Christ,” Dr. Wilkins wrote, musing on how close he might have come to making the discovery himself. [source]

Genome 562 - Population Genetics - Joe Felsenstein

Theoretical Evolutionary Genetics - a draft text - Joe Felsenstein

Population Genetics notes - Graham Coop

Population genetics teaching resources - Graham Coop

Lecture notes in population genetics - Kent Holsinger

The Progress of Genetics From the 1930s to Today - James Crow (2010)

Introduction to Population Genetics - Lynn Jorde (2012)

From the detailed genomes of both Neandertals and Denisovans, Pääbo and Montgomery Slatkin of the University of California, Berkeley, estimated that 17% of the Denisovan DNA was from the local Neandertals. And the comparison revealed another surprise: Four percent of the Denisovan genome comes from yet another, more ancient, human—"something unknown," Pääbo reported. "Getting better coverage and more genomes, you can start to see the networks of interactions in a world long ago," says David Kingsley, an evolutionary biologist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.

With all the interbreeding, "it's more a network than a tree," points out Carles Lalueza-Fox, a paleogeneticist from the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona, Spain. Pääbo hesitates to call Denisovans a distinct species, and the picture is getting more complicated with each new genome.

Now, we may be learning that the Denisovan genome itself represents different ancestral groups -- not only a more ancient "something unknown" population, but substantially the local Neandertals. That kind of mixture is not the population history described by papers on the Denisova genome so far. And a third Denisovan mtDNA from one of the third molars at the site is substantially different from the other two, pointing to greater mtDNA diversity within the Denisovan population than now known from either Neandertals or living people.

What does it mean? I don't think there's a contradiction here in the data. What this shows is that the methods applied to the data have been too simplistic. The methods will come to a result, but that result may not fit the data as well as a population model with more complexity. Looking only at one kind of comparison -- as the Li and Durbin model applied to the Denisova genome by Meyer and colleagues last year [1] -- will probably not give a result that describes the true population history. We need to keep our minds open to more complex population histories that may be more consistent with other sources of data, including archaeological and fossil information.

• Alan Templeton's model of human origins
• Denisovans: Homo erectus after all?
• The Denisova hominin need not be an out of Africa story

Genes and the Human Condition (From Behavior to Biotechnology)
Tammatha O'Brien, Raymond J. St. Leger

Useful Genetics
Rosemary Redfield

Introduction to Biology - The Secret of Life
Eric Lander

Archaeology's Dirty Little Secrets
Sue Alcock

Human Evolution: Past and Future
John Hawks

Steve Sailer alerted me to Forbes Israel's list of Jewish billionaires (http://www.forbes.co.il/rating/list.aspx?en6v0tVq=FK), pointing out the number of American Jews appears to be much lower than might be expected based on assessments of the ethnic makeup of the Forbes 400 in 2009 and 2010. As translated by Google:

The world's richest Jews

Jewish billionaires comprise 11% of global billionaires list, and common wealth reaches -812 billion. Who is the top, and in some places deteriorated Mark Zuckerberg?

I count 43 Jews in the 2012 Forbes 400 not included in the Forbes Israel list:

Alexander Rovt
Arthur Blank
Bernard Saul, II. [Update: B.F. Saul is apparently not Jewish, but D.E. Shaw is, so the numbers remain the same.]
Bruce Karsh
Bruce Kovner
Charles Ergen
Daniel Och
Donald Bren
Edmund Ansin
Edward Lampert
Elaine Wynn
Eli Broad
Evgeny (Eugene) Shvidler
George Roberts
Henry Kravis
Henry Swieca
Herbert Allen, Jr. & family
Howard Marks
Ira Rennert
James Irsay
James Simons
Jeff Greene
Jerry Speyer
Leon Black
Leon G. Cooperman
Marc Lasry
Marc Rowan
Mitchell Rales
Neil Bluhm
Nelson Peltz
Peter Sperling
Reid Hoffman
Richard LeFrak & family
Robert Kraft
Sidney Kimmel
Stanley Druckenmiller
Stephen Ross
Steve Wynn
Steven Rales
Stewart and Lynda Resnick
Stewart Rahr
Sumner Redstone
Thomas Steyer

Seven Jews included in the Forbes Israel list, but not the Forbes 400 (probably because they came in below the $1.1 billion cutoff):

Michael Rubin
Nicholas Pritzker
Nicholas Woodman
Seth Klarman
Charles Zegar
Tory Burch
Sara Blakely

And two individuals who Forbes Israel classifies as Jewish but who I do not:

Phil Anschutz
Amos Hostetter, Jr.

Adding a net of 41 names to the 163 Forbes managed to come up with pushes the estimated proportion of Jews among world billionaires from 11.4% to 14.3%. While I'm not going to look at the full 1426 person Forbes Billionaires list right now, obviously the Jewish proportion could be even higher depending on how many people Forbes Israel staffers missed in the rest of the world or in the US below $1.1 billion.

The full (incomplete) Forbes Israel Jewish world billionaires list:

Rating Name Age Equivalents (billions of dollars) Source of wealth Citizenship Forbes global ranking
1 Larry Ellison 68 43 Oracle U.S. 5
2 Michael Bloomberg 71 27 Bloomberg U.S. 13
3 Sheldon Adelson 79 26.5 Casino U.S. 15
4 Larry Page 39 23 Google U.S. 20
5 Sergey Brin 39 22.8 Google U.S. 21
6 Carl Icahn 77 20 Leveraged buyouts U.S. 26
7 George Soros 82 19.2 Hedge Funds U.S. 30
8 Mikhail Fridman 48 16.5 Oil, Banking, Telecom Russia 41
9 Len Blavatnik 55 16 Varied U.S. 44
10 Joseph Safra 74 15.9 Banking Brazil 46
11 Michael Dell 48 15.3 Poor U.S. 49
12 Steve Ballmer 56 15.2 Microsoft U.S. 51
13 Viktor Vekselberg 55 15.1 Petroleum, metals Russia 52
14 Mark Zuckerberg 28 13.3 Facebook U.S. 66
15 Serge Dessau 87 13 Aviation France 69
16 Mikhail Frocorob 47 13 Investments Russia 69
17 Ronald Perelman 70 12.2 Leveraged buyouts U.S. 79
18 John Paulson 57 11.2 Hedge Funds U.S. 91
19 David Reuben 70 10.5 Investments, Real Estate UK 103
20 Simon Reuven 70 10.5 Investments, Real Estate UK 103
21 German Kahn 51 10.5 Oil, Banking, Telecom Russia 103
22 Roman Abramovich 46 10.2 Steel Investment Russia 107
23 Phil Anschutz 73 10 Investments U.S. 109
24 George Kaiser 70 10 Oil and gas, banking U.S. 109
25 Michael Ball and his family 72 9.5 Varied Hong Kong 115
26 Steve Cohen 57 9.3 Hedge Funds U.S. 117
27 Leonard Lauder 79 8.1 Estee Lauder U.S. 143
28 Samuel Irving Newhouse 85 8.1 Conde Nast U.S. 143
29 Alain and Gerard Wertheimer 8 Chanel France 145
30 Donald Newhouse 83 7.3 Conde Nast U.S. 158
31 Ralph Lauren 73 7 Ralph Lauren U.S. 166
32 David Tepper 55 7 Hedge Funds U.S. 166
33 Idan Ofer 57 6.5 Drilling, shipping Israel 182
34 Stephen Schwarzman 66 6.5 Private Equity U.S. 182
35 David Geffen 70 6 Movies, Music U.S. 198
36 Eyal Ofer 62 6 Real estate, shipping Israel 198
37 Micky Arison 63 5.7 Carnival Kroses U.S. 211
38 Frank Lowy 82 5.3 Malls Australia 229
39 Philip Green 61 5 Retail UK 248
40 Christina Green 61 5 Retail UK 248
41 Alexander Abramov 54 4.6 Steel, mining Russia 272
42 Leslie Wexner 75 4.5 Retail U.S. 276
43 Malcolm Glazer 84 4.4 Sports teams, Real Estate U.S. 286
44 Stef Wertheimer 86 4.4 Industrial Tools Israel 286
45 Daniel Ziff 41 4.4 Investments U.S. 286
46 Dirk Ziff 49 4.4 Investments U.S. 286
47 Robert Ziff 46 4.4 Investments U.S. 286
48 Shari Arison 55 4.2 Carnival Kroses Israel 308
49 Arnon Milchan 68 4.2 Making Movies Israel 308
50 Leonard Stern 74 4.2 Real Estate U.S. 308
51 Benny Steinmetz 57 4.1 Mining, diamonds, real estate Israel 316
52 Ted Lerner 87 4 Real Estate U.S. 329
53 Sam Zell 71 4 Real estate, private equity U.S. 329
54 Dustin Moskowitz 28 3.8 Facebook U.S. 353
55 Victor Pinchuk 52 3.8 Steel pipes, a Ukraine 353
56 Bernard (Barry) Sherman 71 3.7 Pharmaceuticals Canada 363
57 Sheldon solos 84 3.7 Real Estate U.S. 363
58 Jeffrey Skoll 48 3.7 Non-Bay U.S. 363
59 Ronald Lauder 69 3.6 Estee Lauder U.S. 376
60 Lynn Schusterman 74 3.5 Oil and gas investments U.S. 384
61 John Gandel 78 3.5 Malls Australia 384
62 Daniel Gilbert 51 3.5 Agility loans U.S. 384
63 Arkady Rotenberg 61 3.3 Construction, pipelines, banking Russia 412
64 Steven Spielberg 66 3.2 Movies U.S. 423
65 Karen Pritzker 55 3.2 Hotels, Investments U.S. 423
66 Bernard Marcus 83 3.1 Home Depot U.S. 437
67 Haim Saban 68 3.1 Television U.S. 437
68 Israel Englander 64 3 Hedge Funds U.S. 458
69 Anthony Pritzker 52 3 Hotels, investments U.S. 458
70 J. Robert (G'ii. me) Pritzker 48 3 Hotels, investments U.S. 458
71 David Rubinstein 63 3 Leveraged buyouts U.S. 458
72 Eddie and Sol eligible 62 3 Real Estate UK 458
73 Alfred Taubman 89 2.9 Real Estate U.S. 490
74 Joan Tisch 87 2.9 Varied U.S. 490
75 Doris Fisher 81 2.8 Gap U.S. 503
76 Amos Hustadtr 76 2.7 Cable TV U.S. 527
77 Jeremy Jacobs 73 2.7 Sports franchises U.S. 527
78 Philip Frost 76 2.6 Pharmaceuticals U.S. 554
79 Marc Benioff 48 2.6 Business Software U.S. 554
80 Daryl Katz 51 2.6 Pharmacies Canada 554
81 Anita Zucker 61 2.6 Chemicals U.S. 554
82 Alyssa Koplowicz 58 2.5 Construction Spain 589
83 Vyacheslav Kantor 59 2.4 Fertilizers, Real Estate Russia 613
84 Isaac Perlmutter 70 2.4 Marvel U.S. 613
85 George Lindemann and family 76 2.4 Investments U.S. 613
86 Mark Kiovn 54 2.4 Online Media U.S. 613
87 Moise Safra 78 2.4 Banking Brazil 613
88 Mortimer Zuckerman 75 2.4 Real Estate Media U.S. 613
89 Michael Milken 66 2.3 Investments U.S. 641
90 Thomas Pritzker 62 2.3 Hotels U.S. 641
91 Herbert Simon 78 2.2 Real Estate U.S. 670
92 John Fisher 51 2.2 Gap U.S. 670
93 Dan Gertler 39 2.2 Mining Israel 670
94 Eduardo Saverin 31 2.2 Facebook Brazil 670
95 Michael Moritz 58 2.2 Venture Capital U.S. 670
96 Yitzhak Tshuva 64 2.2 Real Estate Israel 670
97 Joshua Harris 48 2.1 Private Equity U.S. 704
98 And steam Moskowitz 45 2.1 Agriculture, development Russia 704
99 Lawrence Stroll 53 2.1 Retail Canada 704
100 Nicolas Berggruen 51 2 Investments U.S. 736
101 Charles Bronfman 81 2 Liquor Canada 736
102 Barry Diller 71 1.9 IAC / InterActiveCorp U.S. 792
103 Ken Fisher 62 1.9 Money Management U.S. 792
104 Eli Horn 69 1.9 Real Estate Brazil 792
105 Jean (Gigi) Pritzker 51 1.9 Hotels, investments U.S. 792
106 Dirk Roseman 66 1.9 Drugstore Chain Germany 792
107 Donald Sterling 77 1.9 Real Estate U.S. 792
108 John Pritzker 60 1.85 Hotels, investments U.S. 825
109 Across the Pritzker 53 1.85 Hotels, investments U.S. 825
110 SS. Daniel Abraham 88 1.8 Slim Fast U.S. 831
111 Robert Friedland 62 1.8 Mines U.S. 831
112 Teddy Sagi 41 1.8 Playtech Israel 831
113 Jamie Garfinkel and his family 66 1.75 Insurance Brazil 868
114 David Nice 65 1.75 Art Monaco 868
115 Daniel Pritzker 54 1.75 Hotels, investments U.S. 868
116 Valery Kogan 62 1.75 Airport Russia 868
117 Glenn Dubin 55 1.7 Hedge Funds U.S. 868
118 Noam Gottesman 51 1.7 Hedge Funds U.S. 882
119 Alexander Knaster 54 1.7 Oil, telecom, banking U.S. 882
120 Michael Rubin 40 1.7 Online Retail U.S. 882
121 Henry Samueli 58 1.7 Semiconductor U.S. 882
122 Thomas Friedkin 77 1.7 Toyota distribution U.S. 882
123 David Gottesman 86 1.65 Investments U.S. 922
124 Age Weed 45 1.65 Software Israel 922
125 Norman Ramen 80 1.6 Art, car dealerships U.S. 931
126 Robert Fisher 59 1.6 Gap U.S. 931
127 Mitchell Goldhar 51 1.6 Real Estate Canada 931
128 Stephen Mandel Jr. 57 1.6 Hedge Funds U.S. 931
129 Ron in the closet 69 1.6 Money Management U.S. 931
130 Howard Schultz 59 1.6 Starbucks U.S. 931
131 William Fisher 55 1.55 Gap U.S. 965
132 Irwin Jacobs 79 1.55 Qualcomm U.S. 965
133 Lev Leviev 57 1.5 Diamonds Israel 974
134 Daniel Loeb 51 1.5 Hedge Funds U.S. 974
135 Ezra Good 67 1.5 Art Collection Monaco 974
136 James Pritzker 61 1.5 Hotels, investments U.S. 974
137 Wilma Tisch 85 1.5 Varied U.S. 974
138 Gary Michelson 64 1.4 Medical Patents U.S. 1031
139 Boris Rotenberg 56 1.4 Construction, pipelines, chemical Russia 1031
140 Gerald Schwartz 71 1.4 Finance Canada 1031
141 Gary Allan 83 1.3 Cable TV U.S. 1107
142 Thomas Kaplan 50 1.3 Investments U.S. 1107
143 Michael Price 60 1.3 Investments U.S. 1107
144 Shaul Shani 58 1.3 Technology Israel 1107
145 Nicholas Woodman 97 1.3 Go Pro U.S. 1107
146 Paul Singer 68 1.3 Hedge Funds U.S. 1107
147 David Einhorn 44 1.25 Hedge Funds U.S. 1161
148 Leon Charney 71 1.2 Real Estate U.S. 1175
149 Solomon to him 68 1.2 Retail Australia 1175
150 Lily Safra 75 1.2 Inheritance Monaco 1175
151 Yuri Milner 51 1.1 Social Networking Russia 1268
152 Dorothea Steinberoc 1.1 Steel Brazil 1268
153 Nicholas Pritzker 69 1.1 Hotels, investments U.S. 1268
154 Mori Arkin 60 1.05 Pharmaceuticals Israel 1332
155 Bino 69 1.05 Banking, oil Israel 1332
156 Seth Klarman 55 1.05 Investments U.S. 1332
157 Sara Blakely 42 1 Spanx U.S. 1342
158 Tory Burch 46 1 Fashion U.S. 1342
159 Morris Kahn 83 1 Software Israel 1342
160 Esther Kopolovitz 59 1 Construction Spain 1342
161 Marius Nacht 47 1 Software Israel 1342
162 Dan Schneider 48 1 Washington Redskins U.S. 1342
163 Charles Zeiger 65 1 Bloomberg al. According U.S. 1342

Particularly for Eastern Europe, individual classifications may be less accurate than my classifications of US billionaires, but the overall breakdown should be reasonably close to reality. I may have incorrectly included a few people in the Jewish list, but if anything probably incorrectly left off a larger number -- my Jewish category should be more accurate/comprehensive than Forbes Israel's "Richest Jews" list in any case. Note that I've arbitrarily chosen to include Tatars in the Middle Eastern category, along with Armenians, Azerbaijanis, etc. Mongoloid-appearing Kazakhs were included in the Asian category. I generally put Latin Americans with Northern European or Italian names (who were not obviously mestizo) in the appropriate European category.

You're free to post any corrections.

Related posts:

• 2012 Forbes 400 by ethnic origins
• The world's richest Jews (an incomplete list)
• Ethnic origins of US attendees of 2013 World Economic Forum in Davos

Full list below.

[Rank Name Net Worth Age Source Country of Citizenship]

Northwestern European
2 Bill Gates $67 B 57 Microsoft United States
4 Warren Buffett $53.5 B 82 Berkshire Hathaway United States
6 David Koch $34 B 72 diversified United States
6 Charles Koch $34 B 77 diversified United States
9 Liliane Bettencourt & family $30 B 90 L'Oreal France
10 Bernard Arnault & family $29 B 64 LVMH France
11 Christy Walton & family $28.2 B 58 Wal-Mart United States
12 Stefan Persson $28 B 65 H&M; Sweden
14 Jim Walton $26.7 B 65 Wal-Mart United States
16 Alice Walton $26.3 B 63 Wal-Mart United States
17 S. Robson Walton $26.1 B 69 Wal-Mart United States
18 Karl Albrecht $26 B 93 Aldi Germany
19 Jeff Bezos $25.2 B 49 Amazon.com United States
24 David Thomson & family $20.3 B 55 media Canada
29 Dieter Schwarz $19.5 B 73 retail Germany
31 Theo Albrecht, Jr. & family $18.9 B 62 Aldi, Trader Joe's Germany
33 Jorge Paulo Lemann $17.8 B 73 beer Brazil
36 Jacqueline Mars $17 B 73 candy United States
36 John Mars $17 B 76 candy United States
36 Georgina Rinehart $17 B 59 mining Australia
36 Forrest Mars, Jr. $17 B 81 candy United States
53 Francois Pinault & family $15 B 76 retail France
53 Paul Allen $15 B 60 Microsoft, investments United States
56 Phil Knight $14.4 B 75 Nike United States
58 Susanne Klatten $14.3 B 50 BMW, pharmaceuticals Germany
61 Michael Otto & family $14.2 B 70 retail, real estate Germany
74 Abigail Johnson $12.7 B 51 money management United States
80 Anne Cox Chambers $12 B 93 media United States
81 Stefan Quandt $11.9 B 46 BMW Germany
87 John Fredriksen $11.5 B 68 shipping Cyprus
89 Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor & family $11.4 B 61 real estate United Kingdom
90 Harold Hamm $11.3 B 67 oil & gas United States
91 Rupert Murdoch $11.2 B 82 News Corp United States
94 Jack Taylor & family $11 B 90 Enterprise Rent-A-Car United States
94 Charlene de Carvalho-Heineken $11 B 58 Heineken Netherlands
94 Hans Rausing $11 B 87 packaging Sweden
98 Laurene Powell Jobs & family $10.7 B 49 Apple, Disney United States
100 Johanna Quandt $10.6 B 86 BMW Germany
109 Philip Anschutz $10 B 73 investments United States
112 Richard Kinder $9.8 B 68 pipelines United States
114 Horst Paulmann & family $9.7 B 78 retail Chile
118 Antonia Johnson $9.2 B 69 diversified Sweden
121 Klaus-Michael Kuhne $9 B 75 shipping Germany
122 Hasso Plattner $8.9 B 69 software Germany
123 Hansjoerg Wyss $8.7 B 78 medical devices Switzerland
131 Andrew Beal $8.5 B 60 banks, real estate United States
136 Harold Simmons $8.3 B 81 investments United States
138 Eric Schmidt $8.2 B 57 Google United States
138 August von Finck $8.2 B 83 investments Germany
145 Galen Weston & family $8 B 72 retail Canada
145 Elaine Marshall & family $8 B 70 inherited United States
154 James Goodnight $7.7 B 70 software United States
156 Klaus Tschira $7.5 B 72 SAP Germany ?
157 Charles Butt $7.4 B 75 supermarkets United States
158 Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen $7.3 B 65 Lego Denmark
161 Dieter Schnabel $7.2 B 67 chemicals Germany
162 Ludwig Merckle $7.1 B 48 pharmaceuticals Germany ?
166 John Menard, Jr. $7 B 73 retail United States
166 Edward Johnson, III. $7 B 82 Fidelity United States
179 Johann Rupert & family $6.6 B 62 luxury goods South Africa
182 Dietmar Hopp $6.5 B 72 SAP Germany
189 Heinz Hermann Thiele & family $6.4 B 72 brakes Germany
195 Eduardo Belmont Anderson $6.1 B - cosmetics Peru ?
198 James Packer $6 B 45 gaming Australia
198 John Malone $6 B 72 cable television United States
198 Jim Kennedy $6 B 65 media United States
198 Blair Parry-Okeden $6 B 62 media United States
198 Olav Thon $6 B 89 real estate Norway
198 Reinhold Wurth $6 B 78 fasteners Germany
211 Andrew Forrest $5.7 B 51 mining Australia
211 Charles Johnson $5.7 B 80 money management United States
215 Rupert Johnson, Jr. $5.6 B 72 money management United States
215 Ray Lee Hunt $5.6 B 70 oil, real estate United States
219 Jim Pattison $5.5 B 84 diversified Canada
219 Charles Cadogan & family $5.5 B 76 real estate United Kingdom
219 Thomas Schmidheiny $5.5 B 67 cement Switzerland
219 Jeffrey Hildebrand $5.5 B 54 Oil United States
225 Johann Graf $5.4 B 66 gambling machines Austria
229 Graeme Hart $5.3 B 57 investments New Zealand
233 Jean-Claude Decaux & family $5.2 B 75 advertising France
233 Jorn Rausing $5.2 B 53 inherited Sweden
233 Dennis Washington $5.2 B 78 construction, mining United States
233 Denis O'Brien $5.2 B 55 telecom Ireland
239 Kirsten Rausing $5.1 B 60 packaging Sweden
239 Randa Williams $5.1 B 51 pipelines United States
239 Richard DeVos $5.1 B 87 Amway United States
239 Milane Frantz $5.1 B 43 pipelines United States
239 Dannine Avara $5.1 B 49 pipelines United States
239 Scott Duncan $5.1 B 30 pipelines United States
239 Finn Rausing $5.1 B 58 inherited Sweden
239 Karl-Heinz Kipp $5.1 B 89 retail Germany
248 Hank & Doug Meijer $5 B - supermarkets United States
248 Stanley Kroenke $5 B 65 sports, real estate United States
258 Robert Rowling $4.9 B 59 investments United States
262 Thomas Frist, Jr. & family $4.8 B 74 health care United States
262 David Duffield $4.8 B 72 business software United States
262 Karl Wlaschek $4.8 B 95 retail Austria
267 Patrick McGovern $4.7 B 75 media United States
267 Wolfgang Herz $4.7 B 62 coffee Germany ?
267 Michael Herz $4.7 B 69 coffee Germany ?
272 Richard Branson $4.6 B 62 Virgin United Kingdom
276 Paul Desmarais $4.5 B 86 finance Canada
276 Trevor Rees-Jones $4.5 B 61 oil & gas United States
276 Ann Walton Kroenke $4.5 B 64 Wal-Mart United States
276 James & Arthur Irving $4.5 B - diversified Canada
276 David Green $4.5 B 71 retail United States
286 Heinz-Horst Deichmann & family $4.4 B 86 shoes Germany
286 James Dyson $4.4 B 65 vacuums United Kingdom
286 Erivan Haub & family $4.4 B 80 retail Germany
299 Emmanuel Besnier $4.3 B 42 Lactalis France
299 Charles Schwab $4.3 B 75 discount brokerage United States
299 Elizabeth Mohn & family $4.3 B 72 media Germany
308 Bruce Halle $4.2 B 82 Discount Tire United States
308 Anthony Bamford & family $4.2 B 67 construction equipment United Kingdom
308 S. Truett Cathy $4.2 B 92 Chick-fil-A United States
316 Ken Griffin $4.1 B 44 hedge funds United States
316 Barbara Carlson Gage $4.1 B 71 hotels, restaurants United States
316 Pierre Bellon & family $4.1 B 83 food services France
316 Marilyn Carlson Nelson $4.1 B 74 hotels, restaurants United States
316 Melker Schorling $4.1 B 65 investments Sweden
316 Bruno Schroder & family $4.1 B 80 banking United Kingdom
316 Bertil Hult $4.1 B 72 education Sweden
316 Gordon Moore $4.1 B 84 Intel United States
329 William Koch $4 B 72 oil, investments United States
329 Gayle Cook $4 B 79 medical devices United States
329 Vincent Bollore $4 B 61 investments France ?
329 Curt Engelhorn $4 B 86 pharmaceuticals Germany ?
329 Stein Erik Hagen & family $4 B 56 retail Norway
346 George Lucas $3.9 B 68 Star Wars United States
346 Nancy Walton Laurie $3.9 B 61 Wal-Mart United States
346 Liselott Persson $3.9 B 64 H&M; Sweden
353 Diane Hendricks $3.8 B 66 roofing United States
353 John Sall $3.8 B 65 software United States
353 Bernard Ecclestone & family $3.8 B 82 Formula One United Kingdom
363 Albert Frere $3.7 B 87 investments Belgium
363 Lars Larsen $3.7 B 64 retail Denmark
376 Axel Oberwelland $3.6 B 46 candy Germany
376 Paul Tudor Jones, II. $3.6 B 58 hedge funds United States
384 Tom & Judy Love $3.5 B 75 retail & gas stations United States
384 Henry Ross Perot, Sr. $3.5 B 82 computer services, real estate United States
384 Michael Ashley $3.5 B 53 sports retailing United Kingdom
384 Christoffel Wiese $3.5 B 71 retailing South Africa
395 Heinz-Georg Baus $3.4 B 79 home improvement stores Germany
395 Ian & Richard Livingstone $3.4 B - real estate United Kingdom
395 Whitney MacMillan $3.4 B 84 Cargill Inc. United States
395 Pauline MacMillan Keinath $3.4 B 79 Cargill Inc. United States
395 Gwendolyn Sontheim Meyer $3.4 B 51 Cargill Inc. United States
395 Thomas Strungmann $3.4 B 63 pharmaceuticals Germany
395 Andreas Strungmann $3.4 B 63 pharmaceuticals Germany
412 J. Christopher Reyes $3.3 B 59 food distribution United States
412 Ingvar Kamprad & family $3.3 B 87 Ikea Sweden
412 Jude Reyes $3.3 B 57 food distribution United States
422 Tamara Gustavson $3.25 B 51 self storage United States
423 Robert Holding $3.2 B - oil, resorts United States
423 David & Frederick Barclay $3.2 B 79 media, retail United Kingdom
423 Fredrik Lundberg $3.2 B 61 real estate, investments Sweden
423 Donald Trump $3.2 B 66 television, real estate United States
423 Frits Goldschmeding $3.2 B 79 temp agency Netherlands
423 Gustaf Douglas $3.2 B 75 security Sweden
437 Alain Merieux & family $3.1 B 75 pharmaceuticals France
437 Guenther Fielmann $3.1 B 73 optometry Germany
437 Charles Dolan & family $3.1 B 86 cable television United States
437 Ron Burkle $3.1 B 60 supermarkets, investments United States
437 Clayton Riddell $3.1 B 75 oil & gas Canada
458 Archie Aldis Emmerson $3 B 84 timberland, lumber mills United States
458 Stephan Schmidheiny $3 B 65 investments Switzerland
458 Friede Springer $3 B 70 publishing Germany
458 Aloys Wobben $3 B 61 wind turbines Germany
458 Riley Bechtel $3 B 61 engineering, construction United States
458 Otto Happel $3 B 65 engineering Germany
458 William Conway, Jr. $3 B 63 leveraged buyouts United States
458 Stephen Bechtel, Jr. $3 B 87 engineering, construction United States
458 Herbert Kohler, Jr. & family $3 B 74 plumbing fixtures United States
458 Kjell Inge Rokke $3 B 54 shipping, seafood Norway
490 Hans Riegel $2.9 B 90 candy Germany
490 Chip Wilson $2.9 B 56 Lululemon Canada
490 Martha Ingram & family $2.9 B 77 book distribution, transportation United States
502 Richard Chandler $2.85 B 54 investments New Zealand
503 Andreas von Bechtolsheim $2.8 B 57 Google Germany
503 Ronda Stryker $2.8 B 58 medical technology United States
503 John Arnold $2.8 B 39 hedge funds United States
503 Winnie Johnson-Marquart $2.8 B 54 SC Johnson & Sons United States
503 S. Curtis Johnson $2.8 B 57 SC Johnson & Sons United States
503 Imogene Powers Johnson $2.8 B 83 SC Johnson & Sons United States
503 Julian Robertson, Jr. $2.8 B 81 hedge funds United States
503 Helen Johnson-Leipold $2.8 B 56 SC Johnson & Sons United States
503 James Jannard $2.8 B 63 sunglasses United States
503 H. Fisk Johnson $2.8 B 54 SC Johnson & Sons United States
527 Amos Hostetter, Jr. $2.7 B 76 cable television United States
527 Robert Bass $2.7 B 65 oil, investments United States
527 John Doerr $2.7 B 61 venture capital United States
527 Gunter Herz $2.7 B 72 coffee Germany
527 Peter Kellogg $2.7 B 70 investments United States
527 Kelcy Warren $2.7 B 57 pipelines United States
527 Warren Stephens $2.7 B 56 investment banking United States
527 David Rockefeller, Sr. $2.7 B 97 Standard Oil, banking United States
527 Mary Alice Dorrance Malone $2.7 B 63 Campbell Soup United States
527 Elon Musk $2.7 B 41 Tesla Motors United States
527 Theo Mueller $2.7 B 73 dairies Germany
527 Jerry Jones $2.7 B 70 Dallas Cowboys United States
527 Kerr Neilson $2.7 B 63 finance Australia
554 Wilbur Ross, Jr. $2.6 B 75 investments United States
554 Jack Dangermond $2.6 B 67 mapping software United States
554 David Bonderman $2.6 B 70 leveraged buyouts United States
554 Martin & Olivier Bouygues $2.6 B - construction, media France
554 Rodney Lewis $2.6 B 59 natural gas United States
554 Thomas Bruch $2.6 B 63 food retailing Germany
554 Peter Buck $2.6 B 82 Subway Restaurants United States
554 John Caudwell $2.6 B 60 mobile phones United Kingdom
554 Friedhelm Loh $2.6 B 66 manufacturing Germany
554 Philippe Foriel-Destezet $2.6 B 77 temp agency France
589 Ty Warner $2.5 B 69 Beanie Babies United States
589 Phillip Ruffin $2.5 B 78 casinos, real estate United States
589 John Whittaker $2.5 B 71 real estate United Kingdom
589 Timothy Headington $2.5 B 63 oil & gas, investments United States
589 Daniela Herz $2.5 B 59 coffee Germany
589 Siegfried Meister $2.5 B 75 appliances Germany
589 Paul Ramsay $2.5 B 77 hospitals Australia
589 Anders Holch Povlsen $2.5 B 40 retail Denmark
612 H. Wayne Huizenga $2.45 B 75 investments United States
613 David Murdock $2.4 B 90 Dole, real estate United States
613 Randal Kirk $2.4 B 59 pharmaceuticals United States
613 Robert Rich, Jr. $2.4 B 72 frozen foods United States
613 Niels Peter Louis-Hansen $2.4 B 65 medical devices Denmark
613 Alexandra Schorghuber $2.4 B 54 real estate Germany
613 John Dorrance, III. $2.4 B 69 Campbell Soup Ireland
613 Yvonne Bauer & family $2.4 B 36 Bauer Media Group Germany
641 Hubert Burda $2.3 B 73 publishing Germany
641 Kerry Stokes $2.3 B 72 media Australia
641 Henry Hillman $2.3 B 94 investments United States
641 David Hains $2.3 B 82 finance Australia
641 Robert Miller $2.3 B 67 retail Canada
641 Marianne Liebmann $2.3 B 59 Cargill, Inc. United States
641 Bill Gross $2.3 B 69 investments United States
641 Ray Dolby $2.3 B 80 Dolby Laboratories United States
641 Jim Davis & family $2.3 B 69 New Balance United States
641 Ralph Dommermuth $2.3 B 49 internet service provider Germany
641 James Cargill, II. $2.3 B 64 Cargill Inc. United States
641 Austen Cargill, II. $2.3 B 62 Cargill Inc. United States
641 Peter Hargreaves $2.3 B 66 financial services United Kingdom
670 Juan Fernando Belmont Anderson $2.2 B 69 cosmetics Peru ?
670 John de Mol $2.2 B 58 TV Netherlands
670 Maria-Elisabeth & Georg Schaeffler $2.2 B - ball bearings Germany
670 Walter Scott, Jr. $2.2 B 81 construction, telecom United States
670 Michael & Rainer Schmidt-Ruthenbeck $2.2 B - retail Germany
670 Christian & Olivier Courtin-Clarins & family $2.2 B 59 Clarins France
670 Esther Grether & family $2.2 B 77 art collection, Swatch Switzerland
670 Clemmie Spangler, Jr. $2.2 B 81 investments United States
670 William Wrigley, Jr. $2.2 B 49 chewing gum United States
704 Sylvia Stroher $2.1 B 57 cosmetics Germany
704 Bernard Broermann $2.1 B 69 healthcare Germany
704 Alex Beard $2.1 B 45 Glencore International United Kingdom
704 Mark Coombs $2.1 B 52 finance United Kingdom
704 Nicolas Puech $2.1 B 70 Hermes France
704 Frederick Smith $2.1 B 68 FedEx United States
704 James Coulter $2.1 B 53 leveraged buyouts United States
704 Stanley Perron $2.1 B 90 real estate Australia
704 Jean Claude Gandur $2.1 B 64 oil trading, exploration Switzerland
704 Stanley Hubbard $2.1 B 79 DirecTV United States
736 Judy Faulkner $2 B 69 health IT United States
736 Martin Naughton $2 B 73 heating equipment Ireland
736 Ted Turner $2 B 74 cable television United States
736 Michael Pieper $2 B 67 kitchen appliances Switzerland
736 Sean Parker $2 B 33 Facebook United States
736 Richard Marriott $2 B 74 hotels United States
736 Gordon Getty $2 B 79 Getty Oil United States
736 Richard Peery $2 B 74 real estate United States
736 George Mitchell $2 B 93 oil & gas United States
736 Wolfgang Leitner $2 B 60 engineering Austria
736 Eva Maria Bucher-Haefner $2 B 56 Computer Associates Switzerland
736 Lee Bass $2 B 56 oil, investments United States
736 Martin Haefner $2 B 59 technology, investments Switzerland
736 Martin Viessmann $2 B 59 heating equipment Germany
736 Edward Bass $2 B 68 oil, investments United States
785 B. Wayne Hughes $1.95 B 79 self storage United States
785 Jean Coutu $1.95 B 85 pharmacies Canada
792 Brad Kelley $1.9 B 56 tobacco United States
792 Dirk Rossmann $1.9 B 66 drugstore chain Germany
792 Meg Whitman $1.9 B 56 Ebay United States
792 Georg von Opel $1.9 B 46 real estate/investments Germany
792 Clayton Mathile $1.9 B 72 pet food United States
792 Lindsay Fox $1.9 B 76 logistics Australia ?
792 Johnelle Hunt $1.9 B 81 trucking United States
831 Robert McNair $1.8 B 76 energy, sports United States
831 Gerald J. Ford $1.8 B 68 banking United States
831 Guy Laliberte $1.8 B 53 Cirque du Soleil Canada
831 Jimmy Haslam $1.8 B 59 retail United States
831 Hans-Werner Hector $1.8 B 73 SAP Germany ?
831 Drayton McLane, Jr. $1.8 B 76 Wal-Mart, logistics United States
831 Dean White $1.8 B 89 billboards, hotels United States
831 Peter Gilgan $1.8 B 62 homebuilding Canada
831 Dermot Desmond $1.8 B 62 finance Ireland
831 Sid Bass $1.8 B 70 oil, investments United States
831 Thomas Siebel $1.8 B 60 business software United States
831 Maja Oeri $1.8 B 58 Roche Holding Switzerland ?
868 Bill Marriott, Jr. $1.75 B 81 hotels United States
868 N. Murray Edwards $1.75 B 53 oil & gas Canada
868 Rolf Gerling $1.75 B 58 insurance Germany ?
882 Hans Melchers $1.7 B 74 chemicals, investments Netherlands ?
882 Glen Taylor $1.7 B 72 printing United States
882 Bennett Dorrance $1.7 B 67 Campbell Soup United States
882 Ronald Southern $1.7 B 82 structures, utilities Canada
882 Jim Justice, II. $1.7 B 61 coal United States
882 Carl Bennet $1.7 B 61 investments Sweden
882 David Cheriton $1.7 B 62 Google Canada ?
882 Reinold Geiger $1.7 B 65 beauty products Austria
882 David Filo $1.7 B 47 Yahoo United States
931 Peter Thiel $1.6 B 45 Paypal, Facebook United States
931 Joop van den Ende $1.6 B 71 TV Netherlands
931 Arne Wilhelmsen & family $1.6 B 82 Royal Caribbean Norway
931 James Dinan $1.6 B 53 hedge funds United States
931 Ray Davis $1.6 B 71 pipelines United States
931 Alfred James Clark $1.6 B 85 construction United States
931 Gary Magness $1.6 B 59 cable, investments United States
931 Craig McCaw $1.6 B 63 telecom United States
931 Richard Hayne $1.6 B 65 Urban Outfitters United States
931 Stephen Jarislowsky $1.6 B 87 money management Canada ?
931 Susan Hirt Hagen $1.6 B 76 Erie Indemnity United States
931 Pat Stryker $1.6 B 57 medical technology United States
974 William Erbey $1.5 B 63 Ocwen Financial Corp. United States ?
974 Marie Besnier Beauvalot $1.5 B 32 Lactalis France
974 Albert von Thurn und Taxis $1.5 B 29 diversified Germany
974 Scott Cook $1.5 B 60 Intuit United States
974 Stephen Lansdown $1.5 B 60 financial services Guernsey
974 Hanni Toosbuy Kasprzak $1.5 B 55 shoes Denmark ?
974 Jonathan Nelson $1.5 B 56 leveraged buyouts United States
974 Robert Miller $1.5 B 75 retail United Kingdom ?
974 Thomas Lee $1.5 B 68 leveraged buyouts United States
974 John Henry $1.5 B 63 sports United States
974 Bob Parsons $1.5 B 62 web hosting United States
974 Phillip Ragon $1.5 B 63 health IT United States
974 Jean-Michel Besnier $1.5 B 45 Lactalis France
1024 Richard Schulze $1.45 B 72 Best Buy United States
1031 Chase Coleman, III. $1.4 B 37 hedge fund United States
1031 Peter Unger $1.4 B 68 auto repair Germany ?
1031 Steve Case $1.4 B 54 AOL United States
1031 Henry Ross Perot, Jr. $1.4 B 54 computer services, real estate United States
1031 Henry Nicholas, III. $1.4 B 53 semiconductors United States
1031 John Brown $1.4 B 78 Stryker Corp. United States
1031 Neal Patterson $1.4 B 63 health IT United States
1031 Farris Wilks $1.4 B 61 natural gas United States
1031 Richard Scaife $1.4 B 80 investments United States
1031 Leonard Buckeridge $1.4 B 77 construction Australia
1031 Dan Wilks $1.4 B 56 natural gas United States
1088 Marc Ladreit de Lacharriere $1.35 B 72 finance France
1088 Christopher Goldsbury $1.35 B 70 salsa United States
1088 Ingeburg Herz $1.35 B 91 coffee Germany
1107 Jon Stryker $1.3 B 54 medical technology United States
1107 Mark Stevens $1.3 B 53 venture capital United States
1107 Billy Joe (Red) McCombs $1.3 B 85 real estate, oil, cars United States
1107 Richard Yuengling, Jr. $1.3 B 70 beer United States
1107 Charlotte Colket Weber $1.3 B 70 Campbell Soup United States
1107 Helmut Sohmen $1.3 B 73 shipping Austria
1107 Gary Burrell $1.3 B 75 navigation equipment United States
1107 Louis Bacon $1.3 B 54 hedge funds United States
1107 Andreas Halvorsen $1.3 B 52 hedge funds Norway
1107 David Harding $1.3 B 51 finance United Kingdom
1161 Patrick Ryan $1.25 B 75 insurance United States
1161 Graham Weston $1.25 B 49 web hosting United States
1161 William Ford, Sr. $1.25 B 88 Ford Motor Co United States
1175 Ronald Joyce $1.2 B 82 restaurants Canada
1175 T. Boone Pickens $1.2 B 84 oil & gas, investments United States
1175 Anne Gittinger $1.2 B 77 retail United States
1175 Robert Duggan $1.2 B 68 pharmaceuticals United States
1175 Christopher Cline $1.2 B 55 coal United States
1175 Richard Chilton Jr $1.2 B 54 hedge funds United States
1175 Todd Wagner $1.2 B 52 online media United States
1175 Kenneth Adams, Jr. $1.2 B 90 oil United States
1175 Bruce Nordstrom $1.2 B 79 retail United States
1175 Tom Benson $1.2 B 85 New Orleans Saints United States
1175 Kenny Troutt $1.2 B 65 telecommunications United States
1175 Kevin Plank $1.2 B 40 Under Armour United States
1175 Langley Walker $1.2 B 67 real estate Australia
1175 Allan Slaight $1.2 B 80 broadcasting Canada
1175 Frank Stronach $1.2 B 80 auto parts Canada
1175 Petter Stordalen $1.2 B 50 hotels Norway
1175 Peter Lewis $1.2 B 79 insurance United States
1175 Roger Penske $1.2 B 76 cars United States
1175 Bernard Saul, II. $1.2 B 81 banking, real estate United States
1250 Alain Bouchard $1.15 B 63 Couche Tard Canada
1268 Edward Stack $1.1 B 58 Dick's Sporting Goods United States
1268 Daniel Harrison, III. $1.1 B 65 oil and gas United States
1268 Robert Ingham $1.1 B 81 agriculture Australia
1268 James Clark $1.1 B 69 Netscape United States
1268 Carl Berg $1.1 B 75 real estate United States
1268 John Edson $1.1 B 80 leisure craft United States
1268 Paul Foster $1.1 B 55 Western Refining United States
1268 Bent Jensen $1.1 B 61 Linak Denmark
1268 Charles Munger $1.1 B 89 Berkshire Hathaway United States
1268 Gabe Newell $1.1 B 50 videogames United States
1268 Jack Dorsey $1.1 B 36 technology startups United States
1268 William Macaulay $1.1 B 67 energy investments United States
1268 Len Ainsworth $1.1 B 89 gaming Australia ?
1268 Alberto Roemmers $1.1 B 55 pharmaceuticals Argentina
1268 James Ratcliffe $1.1 B 60 chemicals United Kingdom
1268 James Leininger $1.1 B 68 medical devices United States
1332 Monika Schoeller $1.05 B 74 publishing Germany
1332 Stefan von Holtzbrinck $1.05 B 49 publishing Germany
1342 Max Turnauer $1 B 77 manufacturing Austria ?
1342 Gary Fegel $1 B 39 Glencore International Switzerland ?
1342 Thomas Bailey $1 B 76 finance United States
1342 Claude Dauphin $1 B 62 Trafigura France
1342 Darwin Deason $1 B 72 Xerox United States
1342 Gerald Harvey $1 B 73 retail Australia
1342 Christopher Chandler $1 B 53 investments New Zealand
1342 Donald Hall $1 B 84 Hallmark United States
1342 William Moncrief, Jr. $1 B 93 oil United States
1342 David William Grainger $1 B 85 electrical and industrial equipment United States
1342 Jim Thompson $1 B 73 transport United States
1342 John Van Lieshout $1 B 67 real estate Australia
1342 Christopher Burch $1 B 60 Tory Burch LLC United States
1342 Michael Ashcroft $1 B 67 security United Kingdom
1342 Carol Jenkins Barnett $1 B 56 Publix supermarkets United States

Asian or Pacific Islander
8 Li Ka-shing $31 B 84 diversified Hong Kong
24 Lee Shau Kee $20.3 B 85 diversified Hong Kong
26 Thomas & Raymond Kwok & family $20 B - real estate Hong Kong
44 Cheng Yu-tung $16 B 87 diversified Hong Kong
58 Dhanin Chearavanont & family $14.3 B 74 food Thailand
66 Tadashi Yanai & family $13.3 B 64 retail Japan
68 Henry Sy & family $13.2 B 88 diversified Philippines
69 Lee Kun-Hee $13 B 71 Samsung South Korea
76 Robert Kuok $12.5 B 89 diversified Malaysia
82 Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi $11.7 B 68 drinks Thailand
86 Zong Qinghou $11.6 B 67 beverages China
98 Lui Che Woo $10.7 B 83 gaming Hong Kong
108 Ng Robert & Philip $10.1 B - real estate Singapore
112 Tsai Eng-Meng $9.8 B 56 food Taiwan
128 Wang Jianlin $8.6 B 58 real estate China
128 Masayoshi Son $8.6 B 55 Internet, telecom Japan
131 R. Budi Hartono $8.5 B 72 banking, tobacco Indonesia
138 Michael Hartono $8.2 B 73 tobacco, banking Indonesia
145 Patrick Soon-Shiong $8 B 61 pharmaceuticals United States
145 Peter Woo & family $8 B 67 real estate Hong Kong
153 Tsai Wan-Tsai & family $7.8 B 83 finance Taiwan
158 Liang Wengen $7.3 B 56 manufacturing China
166 Joseph Lau $7 B 61 real estate Hong Kong
172 Robin Li $6.9 B 44 technology China
173 Ma Huateng $6.8 B 41 internet China
191 Chung Mong-Koo $6.3 B 75 Hyundai motor South Korea
198 Liu Yongxing $6 B 64 agribusiness China
209 Hui Ka Yan $5.9 B 54 real estate China
211 Yang Huiyan $5.7 B 31 real estate China
215 Teh Hong Piow $5.6 B 83 banking Malaysia
215 Hiroshi Mikitani $5.6 B 48 online retailing Japan
229 Wei Jianjun & family $5.3 B 49 automobiles China
233 Tang Yiu & family $5.2 B 79 retail Hong Kong
239 Terry Gou $5.1 B 62 electronics Taiwan
248 Wee Cho Yaw $5 B 84 banking Singapore
248 Lucio Tan & family $5 B 78 diversified Philippines
248 Akira Mori & family $5 B 76 real estate Japan
258 Enrique Razon, Jr. $4.9 B 53 ports Philippines
258 Kunio Busujima & family $4.9 B 88 gaming Japan
262 Hui Wing Mau $4.8 B 62 real estate Hong Kong
262 Quek Leng Chan $4.8 B 69 diversified Malaysia
272 Kwee brothers $4.6 B 68 real estate Singapore
276 Jin Sook & Do Won Chang $4.5 B 58 Forever 21 United States
276 Lee Shin Cheng $4.5 B 74 palm oil Malaysia
286 Pansy Ho $4.4 B 50 gaming Hong Kong
299 Takemitsu Takizaki $4.3 B 67 sensors Japan
299 Wu Yajun & family $4.3 B 49 real estate China
316 Jay Y. Lee $4.1 B 44 Samsung South Korea
316 Chan Laiwa & family $4.1 B 72 real estate China
329 Sun Guangxin $4 B 50 diversified China
329 Lin Rong San $4 B 73 real estate Taiwan
329 Lu Zhiqiang $4 B 60 diversified China
345 Andrew Tan $3.95 B 60 diversified Philippines
346 Luo Jye & family $3.9 B 87 tires Taiwan
353 Liu Yonghao & family $3.8 B 61 agribusiness China
353 Roger Wang $3.8 B 64 retail United States
363 Barry Lam $3.7 B 64 computers Taiwan
363 Samuel Yin $3.7 B 62 diversified Taiwan
376 Zhang Xin & family $3.6 B 47 real estate China
395 Jack Ma $3.4 B 48 internet China
395 Lin Yu-lin $3.4 B 77 real estate Taiwan
395 Chairul Tanjung $3.4 B 50 diversified Indonesia
412 Keiichiro Takahara $3.3 B 82 diapers Japan
412 Zhang Jindong $3.3 B 50 retail China
437 Lu Guanqiu $3.1 B 68 diversified China
437 He Xiangjian $3.1 B 70 appliances China
437 Chung Eui-Sun $3.1 B 42 Hyundai motor South Korea
458 William Ding $3 B 41 online games China
458 Zhang Shiping & family $3 B 66 metals China
458 Wang Yung-Tsai $3 B 92 plastics Taiwan
490 Shi Yuzhu $2.9 B 50 diversified China
503 Patrick Lee $2.8 B 71 paper Hong Kong
503 Gong Hongjia & family $2.8 B 48 investments Hong Kong
503 David Consunji & family $2.8 B 91 construction Philippines
503 Yeoh Tiong Lay $2.8 B 83 diversified Malaysia
503 Francis Choi $2.8 B 65 real estate Hong Kong
526 Syed Mokhtar AlBukhary $2.75 B 61 diversified Malaysia
527 Michael Ying $2.7 B 63 retail Hong Kong
527 Vincent Lo $2.7 B 64 real estate Hong Kong
527 Zhang Li $2.7 B 60 real estate China
527 Huang Rulun $2.7 B 61 real estate China
527 Guo Guangchang $2.7 B 46 diversified China
527 Cai Kui $2.7 B 50 real estate China
527 Masatoshi Ito $2.7 B 88 retail Japan
554 Zhang Zhidong $2.6 B 41 Internet China
554 Chee Chen Tung & family $2.6 B 71 shipping Hong Kong
554 David Sun $2.6 B 61 computer hardware United States
554 John Tu $2.6 B 72 computer hardware United States
554 George Ty & family $2.6 B 80 banking Philippines
554 William Fung $2.6 B 65 sourcing Hong Kong
554 Kuok Khoon Hong $2.6 B 63 Palm Oil Singapore
554 Ye Chenghai & family $2.6 B 69 pharmaceuticals Hong Kong
554 Huang Wei $2.6 B 53 real estate China
554 Kar Po Law $2.6 B 65 hotels Hong Kong
588 Chen Fashu $2.55 B 52 diversified China
589 Peter Sondakh $2.5 B 61 investments Indonesia
589 Henry Fong Yun Wah $2.5 B 88 real estate Hong Kong
589 Sze Man Bok $2.5 B 63 consumer products China
589 Han Chang-Woo & family $2.5 B 82 gaming Japan
589 Victor Fung & family $2.5 B 67 trading company United States
589 Hui Lin Chit $2.5 B 60 consumer products China
589 Tong Jinquan $2.5 B 58 real estate China
613 Wang Yusuo & family $2.4 B 49 energy China
613 Cher Wang Wenchi Chen $2.4 B 55 HTC Taiwan
641 Wang Chuanfu $2.3 B 47 batteries, autos China
641 Angela Leong $2.3 B 52 gaming Hong Kong
641 Masahiro Miki $2.3 B 57 retail Japan
641 Pan Zhengmin & family $2.3 B 43 electronics China
641 Zhu Xingliang $2.3 B 53 interior decorating China
641 Vladimir Kim $2.3 B 52 mining Kazakhstan
670 Xu Jingren & family $2.2 B 68 pharmaceuticals China
670 Fu Liquan & family $2.2 B 45 electronics China
670 Li Sze Lim $2.2 B 56 real estate Hong Kong
670 Bulat Utemuratov $2.2 B 55 mining, banking, hotels Kazakhstan
670 Shen Guojun $2.2 B 50 retail China
670 Chu Mang Yee & family $2.2 B 53 real estate China
670 Li Shufu $2.2 B 49 automobiles China
670 Jiang Bin $2.2 B 46 electronics China
670 Suh Kyung-Bae $2.2 B 50 Amorepacific South Korea
704 Min Kao $2.1 B 64 navigation equipment United States
704 Qiu Guanghe & family $2.1 B 61 retail China
704 T.Y. Tsai $2.1 B - finance Taiwan
704 Zhou Chengjian $2.1 B 47 retail China
704 Silas Chou $2.1 B 66 apparel Hong Kong
704 Or Wai Sheun $2.1 B 61 real estate Hong Kong
704 Gao Dekang & family $2.1 B 61 apparel China
736 Peter Lim $2 B 59 investments Singapore
736 Lucio and Susan Co $2 B - retailing Philippines
736 Tahir $2 B 61 diversified Indonesia
736 He Qiaonv & family $2 B 47 landscape architecture China
736 Andrew & Peggy Cherng $2 B - Panda Restaurant Group United States
736 Zhang Zhirong $2 B 44 shipbuilding Hong Kong
736 Thongma Vijitpongpun $2 B 54 real estate Thailand
736 Shin Chang-Jae $2 B 59 Kyobo Life Insurance South Korea
736 Shin Dong-Bin $2 B 58 Lotte South Korea
736 Chey Tae-Won $2 B 52 SK South Korea
736 Martua Sitorus $2 B 53 Palm Oil Indonesia
736 Edwin Leong $2 B 62 real estate Hong Kong
785 Ma Jianrong & family $1.95 B 49 textile, apparel China
785 Krit Ratanarak $1.95 B 67 media, real estate Thailand
792 Chu Lam Yiu $1.9 B 43 flavorings Hong Kong
792 Richard Li $1.9 B 46 telecom Hong Kong
792 Chao Teng-Hsiung $1.9 B 69 real estate Taiwan
792 Shin Dong-Joo $1.9 B 59 Lotte South Korea
792 Chung Mong-Joon $1.9 B 61 HYUNDAI heavy indust South Korea
825 Liu Zhongtian $1.85 B 49 metal processors China
825 Zhang Hongwei $1.85 B 58 diversified China
825 Prasert Prasarttong-Osoth $1.85 B 80 hospitals Thailand
831 Zhu Gongshan $1.8 B 55 solar panel materials China
831 Tiong Hiew King $1.8 B 78 timber Malaysia
831 Hiroshi Yamauchi $1.8 B 85 Nintendo Japan
831 Wong Luen Hei $1.8 B 51 pipe manufacturing China
831 Yoshikazu Tanaka $1.8 B 36 social networking Japan
831 Chen Jianhua & family $1.8 B 42 chemicals China
868 Jason Chang $1.75 B 68 electronics Taiwan
868 Tseng Shin-Yi $1.75 B 85 petrochemicals Taiwan
868 Lei Jun $1.75 B 43 smartphones China
868 Wei Ing-Chou $1.75 B 60 food, beverages Taiwan
868 Liao Long-Shing $1.75 B - petrochemicals Taiwan
868 Suhon Lin $1.75 B 85 petrochemicals Taiwan
882 Thaksin Shinawatra & family $1.7 B 63 real estate, telecom Thailand
882 Hary Tanoesoedibjo $1.7 B 47 media Indonesia
882 Wei Yin-Heng $1.7 B 54 food, beverages Taiwan
882 Song Zuowen $1.7 B 66 diversified China
882 Kim Jung-Ju $1.7 B 45 Nexon South Korea
882 Wei Yin-Chun $1.7 B 56 food, beverages Taiwan
882 Zhong Sheng Jian $1.7 B 55 real estate Singapore
882 Sam Goi $1.7 B 64 frozen foods Singapore
882 Low Tuck Kwong $1.7 B 65 coal Indonesia
882 Theodore Rachmat $1.7 B 69 coal Indonesia
882 Wei Ying-Chiao $1.7 B 58 food, beverages Taiwan
922 Lu Xiangyang $1.65 B 50 automobile, investments China
931 Achmad Hamami & family $1.6 B 82 heavy equipment Indonesia
931 Koo Bon-Moo $1.6 B 68 LG South Korea
931 Djoko Susanto $1.6 B 63 retail Indonesia
931 Murdaya Poo $1.6 B 72 diversified Indonesia
931 Robert Coyiuto, Jr. $1.6 B 60 power Philippines
965 Michael Chiang $1.55 B 60 electronics Taiwan
965 Chen Jinxia $1.55 B 45 investments China
974 Xiu Li Hawken $1.5 B 50 real estate United Kingdom
974 Katsumi Tada $1.5 B 67 real estate Japan
974 Pham Nhat Vuong $1.5 B 44 real estate Vietnam
974 Zhu Yicai $1.5 B 49 diversified China
974 Jerry Yang $1.5 B 44 Yahoo United States
974 Jacky Xu $1.5 B - apparel St. Kitts and Nevis
974 Fang Wei $1.5 B 39 manufacturing China
974 Ciputra & family $1.5 B 81 real estate Indonesia
974 Lee Jay-Hyun $1.5 B 53 CJ South Korea
974 Lee Myung-Hee $1.5 B 69 Shinsegae South Korea
974 Ra-Hee Hong $1.5 B 67 Samsung South Korea
974 Yasumitsu Shigeta $1.5 B 48 mobile telecom Japan
974 Lim Oon Kuin $1.5 B 69 oil trading Singapore
974 Chang Yung Fa & family $1.5 B 85 transport Taiwan
974 Jiang Rensheng & family $1.5 B 59 pharmaceuticals China
1024 Lin Li $1.45 B 49 investments China
1024 Wei Shaojun $1.45 B 50 real estate China
1024 Xiong Xuqiang & family $1.45 B 56 real estate Hong Kong
1024 Huang Yi $1.45 B 51 auto distribution Hong Kong
1031 Shao Genhuo $1.4 B 47 agribusiness China
1031 Douglas Hsu & family $1.4 B 70 diversified Taiwan
1031 Zhang Zhixiang $1.4 B 46 steel China
1031 Chen Tianqiao $1.4 B 40 entertainment China
1031 Koh Wee Meng $1.4 B 49 real estate Singapore
1031 Tony Tan Caktiong & family $1.4 B 60 fast food Philippines
1031 Nobutada Saji $1.4 B 67 beverages Japan
1031 Chanchai Ruayrungruang $1.4 B 59 beverages China
1031 Wang Muqing & family $1.4 B 62 auto distribution China
1031 Chen Yung-Tai $1.4 B - real estate Taiwan
1031 Huang Shih Tsai $1.4 B 61 real estate Hong Kong
1031 Liu Gexin $1.4 B 61 pharmaceuticals China
1031 Liang Yunchao $1.4 B 44 vitamins & nutrition supplements China
1031 Huang Zelan $1.4 B 57 metals China
1031 Vanich Chaiyawan $1.4 B - insurance, drinks Thailand
1031 Sun Piaoyang $1.4 B 54 pharmaceuticals China
1031 Albert Yeung $1.4 B 69 diversified Hong Kong
1031 Gordon Wu $1.4 B 78 real estate Hong Kong
1031 Wang Wenxue $1.4 B 45 real estate China
1087 Wen Yibo & family $1.36 B 47 manufacturing China
1088 Sit Kwong Lam $1.35 B 45 oil, transportation Hong Kong
1088 Geng Jianming $1.35 B 50 real estate China
1088 Shen Wenrong $1.35 B 67 steel China
1107 Li Shuirong $1.3 B 56 petrochemicals China
1107 Che Jianxin $1.3 B 46 retail, real estate China
1107 Keeree Kanjanapas $1.3 B 63 real estate Thailand
1107 Timur Kulibaev $1.3 B 46 banking Kazakhstan
1107 Dinara Kulibaeva $1.3 B 45 banking Kazakhstan
1107 Kazuo Okada & family $1.3 B 70 casinos Japan
1107 Allan Wong & family $1.3 B 63 electronics Hong Kong
1107 Shigenobu Nagamori $1.3 B 68 motors Japan
1107 Yan Zhi $1.3 B 40 real estate China
1107 Koo Bon-Neung $1.3 B 64 LG South Korea
1107 Vincent Tan $1.3 B 61 diversified Malaysia
1107 Tsai Ming-Kai $1.3 B 63 semiconductors Taiwan
1107 Edwin Soeryadjaya $1.3 B 64 coal Indonesia
1107 Wang Yong & family $1.3 B 62 food sweeteners China
1107 Wu Yiling & family $1.3 B 63 pharmaceuticals China
1161 Lee Boo-Jin $1.25 B 42 Samsung South Korea
1161 Ni Zhaoxing $1.25 B 57 real estate China
1161 Sun Weijie $1.25 B 49 manufacturing China
1175 Tu Jianhua $1.2 B 50 motorcycle, real estate China
1175 Roberto Ongpin $1.2 B 76 diversified Philippines
1175 Sun Hongbin $1.2 B 50 real estate United States
1175 Andrew Gotianun & family $1.2 B 85 real estate Philippines
1175 Feng Hailiang $1.2 B 52 copper processing & real estate China
1175 Liu Zaiwang & family $1.2 B 41 decoration China
1175 Chung Yong-Jin $1.2 B 44 Shinsegae South Korea
1175 Hua Bangsong $1.2 B - construction China
1175 Kiki Barki $1.2 B 73 coal Indonesia
1175 Jiang Zhaobai $1.2 B 49 real estate China
1175 Sjamsul Nursalim $1.2 B 72 tires Indonesia
1175 Soichiro Fukutake $1.2 B 67 education Japan
1175 Huang Hongyun & family $1.2 B 46 real estate China
1175 Wang Wei $1.2 B - delivery service China
1175 Seo Jung-Jin $1.2 B 55 biotech South Korea
1250 Wong Kwong Yu & family $1.15 B 43 retail China
1250 Garibaldi Thohir $1.15 B 47 coal Indonesia
1250 Cho Tak Wong & family $1.15 B 66 auto parts Hong Kong
1250 Lam Kong $1.15 B 48 pharmaceuticals China
1250 Qi Jinxing $1.15 B 51 real estate China
1268 Sheng Baijiao $1.1 B 61 retail-apparel/shoe China
1268 Fu Guangming & family $1.1 B 59 poultry China
1268 Lee Man Tat $1.1 B 84 oyster sauce Hong Kong
1268 Ke Xiping & family $1.1 B 52 investments China
1268 Lim Hariyanto Wijaya Sarwono $1.1 B 84 Palm Oil Indonesia
1268 Liu Ming Chung $1.1 B 50 paper manufacturing Brazil
1268 Tang Xiuguo $1.1 B 49 manufacturing China
1268 Li Li & family $1.1 B 49 pharmaceuticals China
1268 Huang Zhenda & family $1.1 B 65 construction China
1268 Wichai Thongthan $1.1 B 66 real estate Thailand
1268 Kim Jun-Ki $1.1 B - conglomerate South Korea
1268 Ye Yuanxi & family $1.1 B 50 decorations China
1268 Huo Qinghua $1.1 B 51 coal China
1268 Ye Cheng $1.1 B 51 real estate, diversified China
1268 Ryoichi Jinnai $1.1 B 86 finance, agriculture Japan
1268 Zhang Guiping & family $1.1 B 61 real estate China
1268 Que Wenbin & family $1.1 B 49 pharmaceuticals China
1268 Benny Subianto $1.1 B 70 coal Indonesia
1268 Cheung Yan $1.1 B 56 paper China
1332 Wang Junmin $1.05 B 44 pharmaceuticals China
1332 Cui Zhixiang $1.05 B 50 copper processing China
1332 Wang Jinshu $1.05 B 56 chemical production China
1332 Liu Baolin $1.05 B 59 drug distribution China
1342 Xiang Wenbo $1 B 50 manufacturing China
1342 Zhang Keqiang $1 B 52 real estate China
1342 Takao Yasuda $1 B 63 retail Japan
1342 Wu Chung-Yi $1 B 54 manufacturing Taiwan
1342 Zan Shengda $1 B 50 diversified China
1342 Larry Yung $1 B 71 diversified China
1342 Wang Yiting $1 B 62 coal mining China
1342 Pollyanna Chu $1 B 55 financial services Hong Kong
1342 Harjo Sutanto $1 B 87 consumer products Indonesia
1342 Wen Jianping $1 B 51 sewage treatment China
1342 Wang Jianyi $1 B 50 fiber optic cables China
1342 Huang Bingwen & family $1 B 59 printing Australia
1342 Chen Lip Keong $1 B 65 gaming Malaysia
1342 Chen Jinshi & family $1 B 50 construction & real estate China
1342 Huang Maoru & family $1 B 47 retail Belize
1342 Chen Miaolin $1 B 61 hotels China
1342 Cao Kejian $1 B 51 manufacturing China
1342 Soegiarto Adikoesoemo $1 B 75 chemicals Indonesia
1342 Alexander Tedja $1 B 67 real estate Indonesia
1342 Liang Xinjun $1 B 45 diversified China
1342 Santosa Handojo $1 B 49 poultry Indonesia
1342 Koo Bon-Sik $1 B 54 LG South Korea
1342 Akio Nitori $1 B 69 retail Japan
1342 Li Zhenjiang $1 B 56 pharmaceuticals China
1342 Lee Seo-Hyun $1 B 39 Samsung South Korea
1342 Lee Joong-Keun $1 B 72 Booyoung South Korea
1342 Yoshiko Mori $1 B 72 inherited, Mori Building Japan
1342 Mao Zhongwu $1 B 50 manufacturing China
1342 Park Hyeon-Joo $1 B 54 Mirae South Korea
1342 Kong Jian Min $1 B 45 real estate China
1342 Liu Xuejing & family $1 B 62 copper, poultry China

Jewish
5 Larry Ellison $43 B 68 Oracle United States
13 Michael Bloomberg $27 B 71 Bloomberg LP United States
15 Sheldon Adelson $26.5 B 79 casinos United States
20 Larry Page $23 B 40 Google United States
21 Sergey Brin $22.8 B 39 Google United States
26 Carl Icahn $20 B 77 leveraged buyouts United States
30 George Soros $19.2 B 82 hedge funds United States
41 Mikhail Fridman $16.5 B 49 oil, banking, telecom Russia
44 Len Blavatnik $16 B 55 diversified United States
46 Joseph Safra $15.9 B 74 banking Brazil
47 Leonid Mikhelson $15.4 B 57 gas, chemicals Russia
49 Michael Dell $15.3 B 48 Dell United States
51 Steve Ballmer $15.2 B 57 Microsoft United States
52 Viktor Vekselberg $15.1 B 56 oil, metals Russia
62 Vladimir Lisin $14.1 B 56 steel, transport Russia
66 Mark Zuckerberg $13.3 B 28 Facebook United States
69 Mikhail Prokhorov $13 B 47 investments Russia
69 Serge Dassault & family $13 B 88 aviation France
69 Donald Bren $13 B 80 real estate United States
79 Ronald Perelman $12.2 B 70 leveraged buyouts United States
82 James Simons $11.7 B 74 hedge funds United States
91 John Paulson $11.2 B 57 hedge funds United States
100 Charles Ergen $10.6 B 60 EchoStar United States
103 David & Simon Reuben $10.5 B 70 investments, real estate United Kingdom
103 German Khan $10.5 B 51 oil, banking, telecom Russia
106 Petr Kellner $10.4 B 48 banking, insurance Czech Republic ?
107 Roman Abramovich $10.2 B 46 steel, investments Russia
109 George Kaiser $10 B 70 oil & gas, banking United States
115 Michael Kadoorie & family $9.5 B 72 diversified Hong Kong
117 Steve Cohen $9.3 B 57 hedge funds United States
131 Oleg Deripaska $8.5 B 45 aluminum, utilities Russia ?
138 Alexei Kuzmichev $8.2 B 50 oil, banking, telecom Russia ?
143 Samuel Newhouse, Jr. $8.1 B 85 Conde Nast United States
143 Leonard Lauder $8.1 B 80 Estee Lauder United States
145 Alain & Gerard Wertheimer $8 B - Chanel France
158 Donald Newhouse $7.3 B 83 Conde Nast United States
166 Ralph Lauren $7 B 73 Ralph Lauren United States
166 David Tepper $7 B 55 hedge funds United States
175 Ivan Glasenberg $6.7 B 56 commodities Australia
179 Xavier Niel $6.6 B 45 internet, telecom France
182 Stephen Schwarzman $6.5 B 66 private equity United States
182 Ira Rennert $6.5 B 78 investments United States
182 Idan Ofer $6.5 B 57 drilling, shipping Israel
182 Nicky Oppenheimer & family $6.5 B 67 diamonds South Africa
191 Eli Broad $6.3 B 79 investments United States
198 Eyal Ofer $6 B 62 real estate, shipping Israel
198 Margarita Louis-Dreyfus $6 B 50 commodities Switzerland
198 David Geffen $6 B 70 movies, music United States
211 Micky Arison $5.7 B 63 Carnival Cruises United States
225 Pyotr Aven $5.4 B 58 oil, banking, telecom Russia
225 Richard LeFrak & family $5.4 B 67 real estate United States
229 Frank Lowy $5.3 B 82 shopping malls Australia
248 Philip & Cristina Green $5 B 61 retail United Kingdom
248 Isak Andic & family $5 B 59 Mango Spain
258 Roberto Civita & family $4.9 B 76 publishing, TV Brazil
267 Sumner Redstone $4.7 B 89 Viacom United States
276 Henry Kravis $4.5 B 69 leveraged buyouts United States
276 Leslie Wexner $4.5 B 75 retail United States
276 Harry Triguboff $4.5 B 80 real estate Australia
286 Daniel Ziff $4.4 B 41 investments United States
286 Stephen Ross $4.4 B 72 real estate United States
286 Robert Ziff $4.4 B 46 investments United States
286 Malcolm Glazer & family $4.4 B 84 sports teams, real estate United States
286 Stef Wertheimer & family $4.4 B 86 tools Israel
286 Dirk Ziff $4.4 B 49 investments United States
299 Bruce Kovner $4.3 B 68 hedge funds United States
299 Laurence Graff $4.3 B 74 diamond jewelry United Kingdom
299 Leon Black $4.3 B 61 private equity United States
308 Shari Arison $4.2 B 55 Carnival Cruises Israel
308 Joe Lewis $4.2 B 76 investments United Kingdom
308 Arnon Milchan $4.2 B 68 movie making Israel
308 Leonard Stern $4.2 B 75 real estate United States
316 George Roberts $4.1 B 69 leveraged buyouts United States
316 Beny Steinmetz $4.1 B 57 mining, diamonds, real estate Israel
329 Sam Zell $4 B 71 real estate, private equity United States
329 Ted Lerner $4 B 87 real estate United States
346 Mitchell Rales $3.9 B 56 manufacturing United States
353 Steven Rales $3.8 B 62 manufacturing United States
353 Dustin Moskovitz $3.8 B 28 Facebook United States
353 Victor Pinchuk $3.8 B 52 steel pipes, diversified Ukraine
363 Sheldon Solow $3.7 B 84 real estate United States
363 Bernard (Barry) Sherman $3.7 B 71 pharmaceuticals Canada
363 Jeffrey Skoll $3.7 B 48 Ebay United States
376 Ronald Lauder $3.6 B 69 Estee Lauder United States
384 Daniel Gilbert $3.5 B 51 Quicken Loans United States
384 John Gandel $3.5 B 78 shopping malls Australia
384 Jan Kulczyk $3.5 B 63 telecom, oil, beer Poland
384 Lynn Schusterman $3.5 B 74 oil & gas, investments United States
395 David Shaw $3.4 B 62 hedge funds United States ?
412 Arkady Rotenberg $3.3 B 61 construction, pipes, banking Russia
423 Steven Spielberg $3.2 B 66 movies United States
423 Jerry Speyer $3.2 B 72 real estate United States
423 Karen Pritzker $3.2 B 55 hotels, investments United States
437 Bernard Marcus $3.1 B 83 Home Depot United States
437 Reid Hoffman $3.1 B 45 LinkedIn United States
437 Nathan Kirsh $3.1 B 81 real estate Swaziland
437 David Azrieli & family $3.1 B 90 shopping malls Canada
437 Edward Lampert $3.1 B 50 hedge funds United States
437 Haim Saban $3.1 B 68 television United States
458 Anthony Pritzker $3 B 52 hotels, investments United States
458 David Rubenstein $3 B 63 leveraged buyouts United States
458 Eddie & Sol Zakay $3 B 62 real estate United Kingdom
458 Jay Robert (J.B.) Pritzker $3 B 48 hotels, investments United States
458 Israel Englander $3 B 64 hedge funds United States
490 Joan Tisch $2.9 B 87 diversified United States
490 Alfred Taubman $2.9 B 89 real estate United States
490 Daniel Och $2.9 B 52 hedge funds United States
503 Stanley Druckenmiller $2.8 B 59 hedge funds United States
503 Doris Fisher $2.8 B 81 Gap United States
503 Steve Wynn $2.8 B 71 casinos, hotels United States
527 Jeremy Jacobs, Sr. $2.7 B 73 sports concessions United States
554 Anita Zucker $2.6 B 61 chemicals United States
554 Marc Benioff $2.6 B 48 business software United States
554 Daryl Katz $2.6 B 51 pharmacies Canada
554 Phillip Frost $2.6 B 76 pharmaceuticals United States
589 Leon G. Cooperman $2.5 B 70 hedge funds United States
589 Alicia Koplowitz $2.5 B 58 construction Spain
613 Mortimer Zuckerman $2.4 B 75 real estate, media United States
613 Isaac Perlmutter $2.4 B 70 Marvel United States
613 Ihor Kolomoyskyy $2.4 B 50 banking, investments Ukraine
613 Jaime Gilinski Bacal $2.4 B 55 banking Colombia
613 Moise Safra $2.4 B 78 banking Brazil
613 Clive Calder $2.4 B 66 record label United Kingdom
613 Mark Cuban $2.4 B 54 online media United States
613 Vyacheslav Kantor $2.4 B 59 fertilizer, real estate Russia
613 George Lindemann & family $2.4 B 77 investments United States
641 Thomas Pritzker $2.3 B 62 hotels, investments United States
641 Jeff Greene $2.3 B 58 real estate, investments United States
641 Michael Milken $2.3 B 66 investments United States
641 Robert Kraft $2.3 B 71 New England Patriots United States
641 Alexander Mamut $2.3 B 53 investments Russia ?
670 Yitzhak Tshuva $2.2 B 64 real estate Israel
670 Eduardo Saverin $2.2 B 31 Facebook Brazil
670 Neil Bluhm $2.2 B 75 real estate United States
670 Dan Gertler $2.2 B 39 mining Israel
670 John Fisher $2.2 B 51 Gap United States
670 Stewart and Lynda Resnick $2.2 B - agriculture, water United States
670 Dmitry Pumpyansky $2.2 B 49 steel pipes Russia ?
670 Michael Moritz $2.2 B 58 venture capital United States
670 Herbert Simon $2.2 B 78 real estate United States
670 Herbert Allen, Jr. & family $2.2 B 73 investment banking United States
704 Marc Rowan $2.1 B 51 private equity United States
704 Eduardo Hochschild $2.1 B 49 inherited, mining Peru
704 Joshua Harris $2.1 B 48 private equity United States
704 Lawrence Stroll $2.1 B 53 retail Canada
704 Alexander Machkevich $2.1 B 59 mining, metals Israel
704 Vadim Moshkovich $2.1 B 46 agriculture, development Russia
736 Nicolas Berggruen $2 B 51 investments United States
736 Charles Bronfman $2 B 81 liquor Canada
792 Elie Horn $1.9 B 69 real estate Brazil
792 Richard Desmond $1.9 B 61 publishing United Kingdom
792 Ken Fisher $1.9 B 62 Money management United States
792 Charles Dunstone $1.9 B 49 mobile phones United Kingdom ?
792 Barry Diller $1.9 B 71 IAC/InterActiveCorp United States
792 Jose Isaac Peres $1.9 B 72 shopping centers Brazil ?
792 Jean (Gigi) Pritzker $1.9 B 51 hotels, investments United States
792 Donald Sterling $1.9 B 77 real estate United States
825 Penny Pritzker $1.85 B 53 hotels, investments United States
825 John Pritzker $1.85 B 60 hotels, investments United States
831 Richard Elman & family $1.8 B 73 commodities United Kingdom ?
831 Teddy Sagi $1.8 B 41 Playtech Israel
831 Robert Friedland $1.8 B 62 mining United States
831 S. Daniel Abraham $1.8 B 88 Slim-Fast United States
868 Valery Kogan $1.75 B 62 airport Russia
868 David Nahmad $1.75 B 66 art Monaco
868 Jayme Garfinkel & family $1.75 B 66 insurance Brazil
868 Daniel Pritzker $1.75 B 54 hotels, investments United States
882 Michael Rubin $1.7 B 40 online retailing United States
882 Noam Gottesman $1.7 B 51 hedge funds United States
882 Elaine Wynn $1.7 B 70 casinos, hotels United States
882 Alexander Knaster $1.7 B 54 oil, telecom, banking United States
882 Glenn Dubin $1.7 B 56 hedge funds United States
882 Thomas Friedkin $1.7 B 77 Toyota distribution United States
882 Henadiy Boholyubov $1.7 B 51 banking, investments Ukraine
882 Henry Samueli $1.7 B 58 semiconductors United States
922 Linda Pritzker $1.65 B 59 hotels, investments United States
922 Howard Marks $1.65 B 67 money management United States
922 Bruce Karsh $1.65 B 57 private equity United States
922 Gil Shwed $1.65 B 45 software Israel
922 David Gottesman $1.65 B 86 investments United States
931 Ron Baron $1.6 B 69 money management United States
931 Howard Schultz $1.6 B 59 Starbucks United States
931 Robert Fisher $1.6 B 59 Gap United States
931 Stewart Rahr $1.6 B 67 drug distribution United States
931 Arthur Blank $1.6 B 70 Home Depot United States
931 Mitchell Goldhar $1.6 B 51 real estate Canada
931 Norman Braman $1.6 B 80 art, car dealerships United States
931 Stephen Mandel, Jr. $1.6 B 57 hedge funds United States
931 Alan Howard $1.6 B 49 hedge funds United Kingdom
965 Ralph Sonnenberg $1.55 B 78 blinds Netherlands
965 William Fisher $1.55 B 56 Gap United States
965 Irwin Jacobs $1.55 B 79 Qualcomm United States
974 Ezra Nahmad $1.5 B 67 art collection Monaco
974 James Irsay $1.5 B 53 Indianapolis Colts United States
974 James Pritzker $1.5 B 61 hotels, investments United States
974 Daniel Loeb $1.5 B 51 hedge funds United States
974 Lev Leviev $1.5 B 57 diamonds Israel
974 Wilma Tisch $1.5 B 85 diversified United States
1031 Elisabeth Badinter $1.4 B 69 advertising France
1031 Boris Rotenberg $1.4 B 56 construction, pipes, chemicals Russia
1031 Thomas Steyer $1.4 B 55 hedge funds United States
1031 Marc Lasry $1.4 B 52 hedge funds United States
1031 Gerald Schwartz $1.4 B 71 finance Canada
1031 Gary Michelson $1.4 B 64 medical patents United States
1088 Nikita Mishin $1.35 B 41 ports, railway transport Russia ?
1107 Thomas Kaplan $1.3 B 50 investments United States
1107 Shaul Shani $1.3 B 58 technology Israel
1107 Alan Gerry $1.3 B 83 cable television United States
1107 Paul Singer $1.3 B 68 hedge funds United States
1107 Evgeny (Eugene) Shvidler $1.3 B 49 oil & gas, investments United States
1107 Nicholas Woodman $1.3 B 37 GoPro United States
1107 Michael Price $1.3 B 60 investments United States
1161 David Einhorn $1.25 B 44 hedge funds United States
1175 Lily Safra $1.2 B 75 inheritance Monaco
1175 Nelson Peltz $1.2 B 70 investments United States
1175 Sidney Kimmel $1.2 B 85 retail United States
1175 William Ackman $1.2 B 46 hedge funds United States
1175 Alexander Rovt $1.2 B 60 fertilizer, real estate United States
1175 Henry Swieca $1.2 B 55 hedge funds United States
1175 Gavril Yushvaev $1.2 B 55 food industry, real estate Russia ?
1175 Solomon Lew $1.2 B 68 retail Australia
1175 Edmund Ansin $1.2 B 77 television United States
1175 Jim Breyer $1.2 B 51 venture capital United States
1175 Leon Charney $1.2 B 71 real estate United States
1250 Peter Sperling $1.15 B 53 education United States
1250 Jeffrey Lorberbaum $1.15 B 58 Mohawk Industries United States
1268 David Sainsbury $1.1 B 72 retail United Kingdom
1268 Dorothea Steinbruch $1.1 B - steel Brazil
1268 Mitchell Jacobson $1.1 B 62 MSC Direct Industrial United States
1268 Daisy Igel $1.1 B 85 gas, petrochemicals Brazil ?
1268 Marcel Adams $1.1 B 92 real estate Canada
1268 Elena Baturina $1.1 B 50 construction Russia ?
1268 Eric Lefkofsky $1.1 B 43 Groupon United States
1268 Yuri Milner $1.1 B 51 social networking Russia
1268 Nicholas Pritzker, II. $1.1 B 69 hotels, investments United States
1268 Michael Krasny $1.1 B 59 retail United States
1332 Mori Arkin $1.05 B 60 pharmaceuticals Israel
1332 Zadik Bino $1.05 B 69 banking, oil Israel
1332 Seth Klarman $1.05 B 55 investments United States
1342 Ryan Kavanaugh $1 B 38 Movies United States
1342 Marius Nacht $1 B 47 software Israel
1342 Monique Louis-Dreyfus $1 B 73 commodities France
1342 Esther Koplowitz $1 B 59 construction Spain
1342 Charles Brandes $1 B 70 money management United States
1342 Dan Snyder $1 B 48 Washington Redskins United States
1342 Marie-Jeanne Meyer $1 B 71 commodities France
1342 John Morgridge $1 B 79 Cisco United States
1342 Tory Burch $1 B 46 Fashion United States
1342 Sara Blakely $1 B 42 Spanx United States
1342 Nasser Khalili $1 B 67 art, real estate United Kingdom
1342 Morris Kahn $1 B 83 software Israel
1342 Charles Zegar $1 B 65 Bloomberg LP United States

Middle Eastern or Central Asian
1 Carlos Slim Helu & family $73 B 73 telecom Mexico
26 Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud $20 B 58 investments Saudi Arabia
34 Alisher Usmanov $17.6 B 59 steel, telecom, investments Russia
47 Rinat Akhmetov $15.4 B 46 steel, coal Ukraine
55 Vagit Alekperov $14.8 B 62 Lukoil Russia
65 Mohammed Al Amoudi $13.5 B 68 oil, diversified Saudi Arabia
123 Iskander Makhmudov $8.7 B 49 mining, metals, machinery Russia
123 Pierre Omidyar $8.7 B 45 Ebay United States
138 Sergei Galitsky $8.2 B 45 retail Russia
162 Suleiman Kerimov $7.1 B 47 investments Russia
166 Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber $7 B 54 real estate, hotels Saudi Arabia
182 Nassef Sawiris $6.5 B 52 construction Egypt
198 Sulaiman Al Rajhi & family $6 B 93 banking Saudi Arabia
229 Bidzina Ivanishvili $5.3 B 57 investments Georgia
353 Samvel Karapetyan $3.8 B 47 development Russia
376 Majid Al Futtaim $3.6 B - real estate, retail United Arab Emirates
384 Najib Mikati $3.5 B 57 telecom Lebanon
384 Taha Mikati $3.5 B 68 telecom Lebanon
395 Ferit Faik Sahenk $3.4 B 49 banking, media Turkey
412 Kirk Kerkorian $3.3 B 95 casinos, investments United States
423 Semahat Sevim Arsel $3.2 B 84 diversified Turkey
437 Murat Ulker $3.1 B 54 food manufacturing Turkey
437 Abdulla bin Ahmad Al Ghurair & family $3.1 B - diversified United Arab Emirates
437 Othman Benjelloun $3.1 B 80 banking, insurance Morocco
437 Husnu Ozyegin $3.1 B 68 finance, diversified Turkey
458 Filiz Sahenk $3 B 46 bank, media Turkey
458 Zarakh Iliev $3 B 46 real estate Russia
458 Alvaro Saieh Bendeck $3 B 63 banking Chile
458 God Nisanov $3 B 41 real estate Russia
490 Mustafa Rahmi Koc $2.9 B 82 diversified Turkey
503 Farhad Moshiri $2.8 B 57 iron ore, steel, telecoms United Kingdom
503 Sarik Tara $2.8 B 83 construction Turkey
527 Ali Ibrahim Agaoglu $2.7 B 59 construction Turkey
554 Prince Sultan bin Mohammed bin Saud Al Kabeer $2.6 B 59 dairy farms Saudi Arabia
554 Tom Gores $2.6 B 48 private equity United States
554 Suna Kirac $2.6 B 71 diversified Turkey
589 Naguib Sawiris $2.5 B 58 telecom Egypt
589 Erman Ilicak $2.5 B 45 construction Turkey
589 Ziyad Manasir $2.5 B 47 construction Russia
613 Bahaa Hariri $2.4 B 46 real estate, investments, logistics Lebanon
613 Kamil Yazici $2.4 B 84 beverages, diversified Turkey
613 Mehmet Emin Karamehmet $2.4 B 69 telecom, diversified Turkey
613 Danil Khachaturov $2.4 B 41 insurance, banking, real estate Russia
641 Alexander Dzhaparidze $2.3 B 57 oil services Russia
641 Richard Rainwater $2.3 B 68 real estate, energy, insurance United States
641 Mohammed Al Issa $2.3 B 88 investments Saudi Arabia
670 Abdullah Al Rajhi $2.2 B - banking Saudi Arabia
670 Mohamed Mansour $2.2 B 65 diversified Egypt
670 Nadhmi Auchi $2.2 B 75 real estate United Kingdom
704 Alijan Ibragimov $2.1 B 59 mining, metals Kazakhstan
704 Miloud Chaabi $2.1 B 84 real estate Morocco
704 Patokh Chodiev $2.1 B 60 mining, metals Belgium
736 Yasseen Mansour $2 B 51 diversified Egypt
736 Onsi Sawiris $2 B 83 construction, telecom Egypt
785 Saleh Kamel $1.95 B 72 diversified Saudi Arabia
785 Youssef Mansour $1.95 B 67 diversified Egypt
792 Alec Gores $1.9 B 60 private equity United States
792 Ayman Asfari $1.9 B 54 oil services United Kingdom
792 Saad Hariri $1.9 B 43 construction, investments Lebanon
825 Luis Enrique Yarur Rey $1.85 B 62 Empresas Juan Yarur S.A.C. Chile
831 Eduardo Eurnekian $1.8 B 70 cable tv, agriculture Argentina
831 Aras Agalarov $1.8 B 57 real estate Russia
868 Roustam Tariko $1.75 B 51 banking Russia
882 Faruk Eczacibasi $1.7 B 58 pharmaceuticals, diversified Turkey
882 Mustafa Latif Topbas $1.7 B 69 food manufacturing, retail Turkey
882 Ahmet Calik $1.7 B 55 energy, media, banking Turkey
882 Deniz Sahenk $1.7 B 67 bank, media Turkey
882 Bulent Eczacibasi $1.7 B 63 pharmaceuticals, diversified Turkey
922 Abdulla Al Futtaim $1.65 B - auto dealers, investments United Arab Emirates
931 Tuncay Ozilhan $1.6 B 65 beverages, diversified Turkey
974 Alfredo Harp Helu & family $1.5 B 69 banking Mexico
974 Zelimkhan Mutsoev $1.5 B 53 fertilizers, real estate Russia
974 Joe Jamail, Jr. $1.5 B 87 lawsuits United States
1031 Megdet Rahimkulov $1.4 B 67 investments Russia
1031 Mehmet Sinan Tara $1.4 B 54 construction Turkey
1031 Mehmet Nazif Gunal $1.4 B 65 tourism, construction Turkey
1031 Mohamed Al Fayed $1.4 B 80 retailing Egypt
1031 Ahmet Nazif Zorlu $1.4 B 68 diversified Turkey
1031 Fayez Sarofim $1.4 B 84 money management United States
1031 Saif Al Ghurair & family $1.4 B - diversified United Arab Emirates
1031 Farkhad Akhmedov $1.4 B 57 natural gas Russia
1088 Ayman Hariri $1.35 B 34 construction, investments Lebanon
1088 Nikolai Sarkisov $1.35 B 44 insurance, real estate Russia
1088 Sergei Sarkisov $1.35 B 53 insurance & real estate Russia
1088 Fahd Hariri $1.35 B 32 construction, investments Lebanon
1107 Ali Metin Kazanci $1.3 B 78 energy Turkey
1107 Mehmet Rustu Basaran $1.3 B 66 bank, gas Turkey
1107 Turgay Ciner $1.3 B 57 diversified Turkey
1107 Aydin Dogan $1.3 B 77 media Turkey
1107 Sevket Sabanci $1.3 B 76 diversified Turkey
1107 Suzan Sabanci Dincer $1.3 B 48 diversified Turkey
1107 Serra Sabanci $1.3 B 37 diversified Turkey
1107 Anas Sefrioui $1.3 B 55 real estate Morocco
1161 Jassim Al-Kharafi $1.25 B - diversfied Kuwait
1161 Fawzi Al-Kharafi $1.25 B - diversified Kuwait
1161 Mohannad Al-Kharafi $1.25 B - diversified Kuwait
1175 Nihat Ozdemir $1.2 B 63 diversified Turkey
1175 Kutayba Alghanim $1.2 B 67 diversified Kuwait
1175 Ahsen Ozokur $1.2 B 62 food manufacturing Turkey
1175 Mehmet Hattat $1.2 B 67 diversified Turkey
1175 Bassam Alghanim $1.2 B 61 diversified Kuwait
1175 Mustafa Vehbi Koc $1.2 B 52 diversified Turkey
1175 Mubariz Gurbanoglu $1.2 B 45 shipping Turkey
1175 Cigdem Sabanci Bilen $1.2 B 44 diversified Turkey
1175 Bacaksiz Sezai $1.2 B 63 diversified Turkey
1250 George Joseph $1.15 B 91 insurance United States
1268 Mehmet Omer Koc $1.1 B 51 diversified Turkey
1268 Hamdi Ulukaya $1.1 B 41 Chobani Turkey
1268 Manuel Moroun & family $1.1 B 85 transportation United States
1268 Radik Shaimiev $1.1 B 48 refinery, chemical Russia ?
1268 Nezih Barut $1.1 B 60 pharmaceutical Turkey
1268 Airat Shaimiev $1.1 B 51 refinery, chemicals Russia ?
1268 Suat Gunsel $1.1 B 60 real estate, education Cyprus
1342 Stephen Saad $1 B 48 pharmaceuticals South Africa
1342 Saban Cemil Kazanci $1 B 52 energy Turkey
1342 Thomas Barrack $1 B 65 real estate investments United States
1342 Sevil Sabanci Sabanci $1 B 40 haci Omer sabanci Holding Turkey
1342 Dilek Sabanci $1 B 48 Haci Omer sabanci Holding Turkey
1342 Murat Vargi $1 B 65 telecom Turkey
1342 Yildirim Ali Koc $1 B 46 diversified Turkey

Eastern European
56 Andrey Melnichenko $14.4 B 41 coal, fertilizers Russia
58 Vladimir Potanin $14.3 B 52 metals Russia
62 Gennady Timchenko $14.1 B 60 oil & gas Russia
73 Alexey Mordashov $12.8 B 47 steel, investments Russia
119 Dmitry Rybolovlev $9.1 B 46 fertilizer Russia
150 Andrei Skoch $7.9 B 47 steel Russia ?
162 Leonid Fedun $7.1 B 57 Lukoil Russia ?
162 Dietrich Mateschitz $7.1 B 68 Red Bull Austria
175 Filaret Galchev $6.7 B 49 construction materials Russia ?
175 Vladimir Yevtushenkov $6.7 B 64 telecom Russia ?
210 Sergei Popov $5.8 B 41 banking Russia ?
248 Thomas Peterffy $5 B 68 discount brokerage United States
272 Alexander Abramov $4.6 B 54 steel, mining Russia ?
308 Viktor Rashnikov $4.2 B 64 steel Russia ?
329 Andrei Guriev $4 B 53 fertilizers Russia ?
363 Edward Roski, Jr. $3.7 B 74 real estate United States
376 Barbara Piasecka Johnson $3.6 B 76 Johnson & Johnson United States
384 Steven Udvar-Hazy $3.5 B 67 aircraft leasing United States
412 Alexander Nesis $3.3 B 50 metals, banking, fertilizers Russia ?
423 Vladimir Bogdanov $3.2 B 61 oil Russia
423 Heidi Horten $3.2 B 72 retail Austria ? [Jelinek]
423 Dmitry Mazepin $3.2 B 45 chemicals Russia
437 Antti Herlin $3.1 B 56 elevators, escalators Finland
458 Mikhail Gutseriev $3 B 55 oil, real estate Russia ?
458 Terrence Pegula $3 B 62 natural gas United States
458 Lev Kvetnoi $3 B 47 cement, airport Russia
490 Vasily Anisimov $2.9 B 61 metals, real estate Russia ?
490 Zygmunt Solorz-Zak $2.9 B 56 TV broadcasting Poland ?
503 Alexander Svetakov $2.8 B 45 banking, real estate Russia
503 Sukanto Tanoto $2.8 B 63 diversified Indonesia
527 Michael & Marian Ilitch & family $2.7 B 83 pizza United States
554 Nikolai Tsvetkov $2.6 B 52 banking Russia
613 Igor Olenicoff $2.4 B 70 real estate United States
670 Viktor Nusenkis $2.2 B 59 coal, metallurgy Russia ?
704 Alexander Skorobogatko $2.1 B 45 port Russia
704 Alexander Ponomarenko $2.1 B 48 port Russia
736 Alexander Frolov $2 B 48 mining, steel Russia
736 Michal Solowow $2 B 50 investments Poland ?
736 Andrej Babis $2 B 58 agriculture Czech Republic
736 Igor Kesaev $2 B 46 tobacco distribution, retail Russia ?
792 Gleb Fetisov $1.9 B 46 telecom, finance Russia
792 Andrei Klyamko $1.9 B 51 steel Russia
792 Igor Makarov $1.9 B 51 gas Russia
792 Vadim Novinsky $1.9 B 49 steel Ukraine
831 Mikhail Balakin $1.8 B 52 construction Russia ?
831 Igor Zyuzin $1.8 B 52 steel Russia
882 Alexei Ananyev $1.7 B 48 banking, IT, real estate Russia ?
882 Anatoly Sedykh $1.7 B 48 steel pipes Russia
882 Anatoly Skurov $1.7 B 60 coal, fertilisers Russia
882 Dmitry Ananyev $1.7 B 44 banking, IT, real estate Russia ?
922 Andrei Molchanov $1.65 B 41 construction materials Russia
931 Yuriy Kosiuk $1.6 B 44 agriculture Ukraine ?
931 Michael Hintze $1.6 B 59 finance Australia
931 Petro Poroshenko $1.6 B 47 confectionery Ukraine ?
965 Vladimir Iorich $1.55 B 54 mining, steel Germany ?
974 Andrei Kosogov $1.5 B 52 oil, telecom, banking Russia
974 Zdenek Bakala $1.5 B 52 coal Czech Republic
974 Kostyantin Zhevago $1.5 B 39 mining Ukraine
974 Vladimir Gridin & family $1.5 B 57 coal, railway transport Russia ?
1031 Oleg Boyko $1.4 B 48 entertaiment, retail, real estate Russia
1031 Roman Avdeev $1.4 B 45 banking, development Russia ?
1031 Leszek Czarnecki $1.4 B 51 finance Poland
1088 Konstantin Nikolaev $1.35 B 42 ports, railway transport Russia ?
1088 Alexander Putilov $1.35 B 61 oil Russia
1088 Andrei Bokarev $1.35 B 46 coal mining, machine building Russia
1088 Andrei Filatov $1.35 B 41 ports, railway transport Russia ?
1107 Valentin Gapontsev & family $1.3 B 74 lasers Russia
1107 Maxim Nogotkov $1.3 B 36 retail, banking Russia ?
1161 Mikhail Abyzov $1.25 B 40 power, power engineering Russia
1161 Sergei Kislov $1.25 B 52 agriculture, refinery Russia ?
1175 Pyotr Kondrashev $1.2 B 63 fertilizers Russia ?
1175 Serhiy Tihipko $1.2 B 53 banking, agriculture Ukraine
1175 Igor Altushkin $1.2 B 42 metals Russia ?
1175 Anatoly Lomakin $1.2 B 60 fertilizers Russia
1175 Konstantin Grigorishin $1.2 B 47 power engineering Russia ?
1175 Yuri Gushchin $1.2 B 68 candy, real estate Russia ?
1175 Nikolai Maximov & family $1.2 B 55 investments Russia ?
1175 Mikhail Fedyaev $1.2 B 50 coal, railway transport, machinery Russia
1175 Andrei Kozitsyn $1.2 B 52 metals Russia ?
1250 Arkady Volozh $1.15 B 49 Internet Russia ?
1250 Leonid Simanovsky $1.15 B 63 investments Russia ?
1250 Albert Shigaboutdinov $1.15 B 58 refinery, chemicals Russia
1250 Rustem Sulteev $1.15 B 59 refinery, chemicals Russia
1268 Vladimir Scherbakov $1.1 B 63 autos Russia ?
1268 Alexander Lutsenko & family $1.1 B 51 agrobusiness Russia
1268 Yuri Kovalchuk $1.1 B 61 banking, insurance, media Russia ?
1268 Ioan Niculae $1.1 B 58 agriculture Romania
1268 Dmitry Troitsky $1.1 B 48 retail Russia ?
1268 Dmitry Korzhev $1.1 B 49 retail Russia
1342 Karel Komarek $1 B 44 oil and gas Czech Republic
1342 Dmitry Kamenshchik $1 B 44 airport Russia ?
1342 Sergei Tsikalyuk $1 B 54 insurance Russia ?
1342 Andrey Verevskiy $1 B 38 agriculture Ukraine ?
1342 Vladimir Gruzdev $1 B 46 investments Russia
1342 Viktor Kharitonin $1 B 40 pharmaceuticals Russia ?

Southern European
3 Amancio Ortega $57 B 77 Zara Spain
23 Michele Ferrero & family $20.4 B 87 chocolates Italy
49 Leonardo Del Vecchio $15.3 B 77 eyeglasses Italy
76 Ray Dalio $12.5 B 63 hedge funds United States
78 Miuccia Prada $12.4 B 63 Prada Italy
94 Ernesto Bertarelli & family $11 B 47 biotech, investments Switzerland
131 Giorgio Armani $8.5 B 78 fashion Italy
175 Patrizio Bertelli $6.7 B 67 luxury goods Italy ?
189 Stefano Pessina $6.4 B 71 drugstores Italy
194 Silvio Berlusconi & family $6.2 B 76 media Italy
195 Rosalia Mera $6.1 B 69 Zara Spain
195 Paolo & Gianfelice Mario Rocca $6.1 B - pipes Italy
219 Juan Roig $5.5 B 63 supermarkets Spain
219 Carlos and Alejandro Bulgheroni $5.5 B - oil and gas Argentina
248 Augusto & Giorgio Perfetti $5 B - candy Italy
299 Emanuele (Lino) Saputo $4.3 B 76 cheese Canada
316 Americo Amorim $4.1 B 78 energy, investments Portugal
329 John Paul DeJoria $4 B 69 hair products, tequila United States
346 John A. Sobrato & family $3.9 B 73 real estate United States
412 Spiro Latsis & family $3.3 B 66 banking, shipping Greece
458 Renzo Rosso $3 B 57 Diesel Jeans Italy
458 Daniel D'Aniello $3 B 66 leveraged buyouts United States
458 Sergio Mantegazza $3 B 85 travel Switzerland
458 James Leprino $3 B 75 cheese United States
458 John Catsimatidis $3 B 64 oil, real estate, supermarkets United States
458 Elisio Alexandre Soares dos Santos & family $3 B 78 retail Portugal
527 Edward DeBartolo, Jr. $2.7 B 66 shopping centers United States
527 Daniel Mate $2.7 B 49 Glencore International Spain
527 Manuel Jove $2.7 B 71 real estate Spain
527 Aristotelis Mistakidis $2.7 B 51 Glencore International Greece
554 Philip Niarchos $2.6 B 59 art collection Greece
554 Fred DeLuca $2.6 B 65 Subway Restaurants United States
589 A. Jerrold Perenchio $2.5 B 82 television United States
613 Rafael Del Pino y Calvo-Sotelo $2.4 B 54 construction Spain
641 Tor Peterson $2.3 B 48 Glencore International United States
704 Juan Abello $2.1 B 71 investments Spain
736 George Argyros $2 B 76 real estate, investments United States
736 Domenico Dolce $2 B 54 Dolce & Gabbana Italy
736 Luciano Benetton $2 B 77 Benetton Italy
736 Carlo Benetton $2 B 69 Benetton Italy
736 Giuliana Benetton $2 B 75 Benetton Italy
736 Carlo Fidani $2 B 58 real estate Canada
736 Gilberto Benetton $2 B 71 Benetton Italy
736 Stefano Gabbana $2 B 50 Dolce & Gabbana Italy
792 Michael Jaharis $1.9 B 84 pharmaceuticals United States
792 Joe Mansueto $1.9 B 56 investment research United States
792 Kenneth Langone $1.9 B 77 investments United States
831 Stephen Bisciotti $1.8 B 53 outsourcing, football United States
831 Mario Brescia Cafferata & family $1.8 B 84 mining Peru
831 Mario Moretti Polegato $1.8 B 60 shoes Italy
831 Helena Revoredo $1.8 B 66 Prosegur Cia de Seguridad SA Spain
831 Juan-Miguel Villar Mir $1.8 B 81 construction Spain
831 Leandro Rizzuto $1.8 B 75 consumer products United States
831 Sandro Veronesi $1.8 B 53 Calzedonia Italy
882 Ennio Doris & family $1.7 B 72 insurance Italy
882 Tilman Fertitta $1.7 B 55 restaurants, casinos United States
931 Tom Golisano $1.6 B 71 payroll services United States
965 Diego Della Valle $1.55 B 59 retail Italy
974 Desmond Sacco $1.5 B 70 mining South Africa
1024 Belmiro de Azevedo $1.45 B 75 retail Portugal
1031 Paolo Bulgari $1.4 B 75 Bulgari Italy
1031 Thomas Secunda $1.4 B 58 Bloomberg United States
1088 Rosa Brescia Cafferata $1.35 B 86 mining, fisheries Peru ?
1088 Ana Maria Brescia Cafferata $1.35 B 89 mining, banking Peru ?
1088 Andrea Della Valle $1.35 B 47 shoes Italy
1107 D. Leopoldo Del Pino y Calvo-Sotelo $1.3 B 51 construction Spain
1107 Jose Llado Fernandez-Urrutia $1.3 B 79 construction Spain
1107 Nicola Bulgari $1.3 B 72 Bulgari Italy
1107 Hubert D'Ornano $1.3 B 87 cosmetics France
1107 Peter Peterson $1.3 B 86 Blackstone Group United States
1175 Mario Gabelli $1.2 B 71 money management United States
1175 Philip Falcone $1.2 B 50 hedge funds United States
1175 Maria Del Pino y Calvo-Sotelo $1.2 B 57 construction Spain
1175 Roberto Angelini Rossi $1.2 B 64 forestry, mining Chile ?
1175 C. Dean Metropoulos $1.2 B 66 investments United States
1250 Gabriel Escarrer $1.15 B 78 hotels Spain
1268 Denise York $1.1 B 62 real estate United States
1332 Stelios Haji-Ioannou $1.05 B 46 EasyJet Cyprus
1342 Alberto Cortina $1 B 67 investments Spain
1342 Enrique Banuelos $1 B 47 real estate Spain
1342 Alain Taravella $1 B 65 real estate France
1342 Alexander Spanos & family $1 B 89 real estate United States
1342 Patricia Angelini Rossi $1 B 59 forestry, mining Chile ?
1342 Jose Maria Aristrain $1 B 50 steel Spain

(New World) Hispanic or Brazilian
32 Alberto Bailleres Gonzalez & family $18.2 B 81 mining Mexico
35 Iris Fontbona & family $17.4 B 70 mining Chile
40 German Larrea Mota Velasco & family $16.7 B 59 mining Mexico
64 Luis Carlos Sarmiento $13.9 B 80 banking Colombia
74 Antonio Ermirio de Moraes & family $12.7 B 84 diversified Brazil
82 Alejandro Santo Domingo Davila $11.7 B 36 beer Colombia
87 Dirce Navarro De Camargo & family $11.5 B - construction Brazil
100 Eike Batista $10.6 B 56 mining, oil Brazil
111 Ricardo Salinas Pliego & family $9.9 B 57 retail, media Mexico
119 Marcel Herrmann Telles $9.1 B 63 beer Brazil
123 Joao Roberto Marinho $8.7 B 59 media Brazil
123 Roberto Irineu Marinho $8.7 B 65 media Brazil
128 Jose Roberto Marinho $8.6 B 57 media Brazil
150 Carlos Alberto Sicupira $7.9 B 65 beer Brazil
179 Eva Gonda Rivera and family $6.6 B - beverages Mexico
225 Carlos Ardila Lulle $5.4 B 82 soft drinks, diversified Colombia
248 Maria Asuncion Aramburuzabala & family $5 B 49 beer Mexico
272 Walter Faria $4.6 B 58 beer Brazil
286 Gustavo Cisneros & family $4.4 B 67 media Venezuela
286 Francisco Ivens de Sa Dias Branco $4.4 B 78 food production Brazil
329 Jeronimo Arango & family $4 B 87 retail Mexico
329 Lorenzo Mendoza & family $4 B 47 beverages Venezuela
329 Andre Esteves $4 B 44 banking Brazil
353 Aloysio de Andrade Faria $3.8 B 92 banking Brazil
363 Bernardo Matte $3.7 B - paper Chile
363 Eliodoro Matte $3.7 B - paper Chile
363 Patricia Matte $3.7 B - paper Chile
363 Abilio dos Santos Diniz $3.7 B 76 retail Brazil
363 Maria Luisa Solari Falabella & family $3.7 B - retail Chile
395 Teresa Matilde Solari Falabella & family $3.4 B - retail Chile
395 Carlos Rodriguez-Pastor $3.4 B 54 finance Peru
395 Juan Cuneo Solari & family $3.4 B - retail Chile
423 Antonio Luiz Seabra $3.2 B 70 cosmetics Brazil
437 Piero Solari Donaggio & family $3.1 B - retail Chile
458 Nevaldo Rocha & family $3 B 84 retail Brazil
554 Rubens Ometto Silveira Mello $2.6 B 63 sugar, ethanol Brazil
554 Edson de Godoy Bueno $2.6 B 69 hospitals, health care Brazil
554 Ana Maria Marcondes Penido Sant'Anna $2.6 B 57 toll roads Brazil
589 Emilio Azcarraga Jean $2.5 B 45 media Mexico
589 Sebastian Pinera $2.5 B 63 investments Chile
613 Dulce Pugliese de Godoy Bueno $2.4 B 65 hospitals, health care Brazil
613 Rufino Vigil Gonzalez $2.4 B 64 steel Mexico
641 Jose and Francisco Jose Calderon Rojas $2.3 B 58 beverages Mexico
704 Joao Alves de Queiroz Filho $2.1 B 60 consumer goods Brazil
736 Lirio Parisotto $2 B 59 investments Brazil
736 Alberto Benavides & family $2 B 92 mining Peru
792 John Arrillaga $1.9 B 75 real estate United States
792 Carlos Hank Rhon & family $1.9 B 65 banking Mexico ?
831 Roberto Hernandez Ramirez $1.8 B 71 banking Mexico
831 Guilherme Peirao Leal $1.8 B 63 cosmetics Brazil
882 Rubens Menin Teixeira de Souza $1.7 B 57 homebuilding Brazil
931 Lina Maria Aguiar $1.6 B 75 banking inheritance Brazil
931 Vito Rodriguez Rodriguez $1.6 B 74 processed milk Peru
974 Victor Gradin & family $1.5 B 80 construction Brazil
974 Gregorio Perez Companc $1.5 B 77 oil and gas Argentina ?
1031 Florentino Perez $1.4 B 66 construction Spain
1031 Max Michel Suberville $1.4 B 80 retail Mexico ?
1031 Julio Bozano $1.4 B 77 banking Brazil
1031 Juan Carlos Escotet $1.4 B 53 banking Venezuela
1031 Jorge Rodriguez Rodriguez $1.4 B 67 processed milk Peru
1107 Silvio Santos $1.3 B 82 television Brazil
1107 Juan Gallardo Thurlow $1.3 B 65 beverages Mexico
1107 Lia Maria Aguiar $1.3 B 75 banking inheritance Brazil
1175 Antonio Jose Carneiro $1.2 B 70 electricity distribution Brazil
1175 Jorge Perez $1.2 B 64 condos United States
1175 Maria Ines de Lafuente Lacroze $1.2 B 68 inheritance Argentina
1250 Arturo Moreno $1.15 B 66 billboards United States
1250 Alfredo Egydio Arruda Villela Filho $1.15 B 43 banking Brazil
1250 Ana Lucia de Mattos Barretto Villela $1.15 B 39 banking Brazil
1250 Rosa Evangelina Marcondes Penido Dalla Vecchia $1.15 B 63 toll roads Brazil
1268 Guilherme Paulus $1.1 B 63 tourism Brazil ?
1268 Woods Staton $1.1 B 63 McDonald's restaurants Colombia ?
1268 Edir Macedo $1.1 B 68 broadcasting Brazil
1342 Marcos Antonio Molina dos Santos $1 B 43 food processing Brazil

South Asian
22 Mukesh Ambani $21.5 B 56 petrochemicals, oil & gas India
41 Lakshmi Mittal $16.5 B 62 steel India
82 Ananda Krishnan $11.7 B 75 telecoms Malaysia
91 Azim Premji $11.2 B 67 software India
103 Pallonji Mistry $10.5 B 83 construction Ireland
116 Dilip Shanghvi $9.4 B 57 pharmaceuticals India
131 Shashi & Ravi Ruia $8.5 B - diversified India
136 Srichand & Gopichand Hinduja $8.3 B 77 diversified United Kingdom
150 Kumar Birla $7.9 B 45 commodities India
155 Savitri Jindal & family $7.6 B 63 steel India
173 Sunil Mittal & family $6.8 B 55 telecom India
182 Shiv Nadar $6.5 B 67 information technology India
191 Kushal Pal Singh $6.3 B 81 real estate India
233 Anil Ambani $5.2 B 53 diversified India
286 Uday Kotak $4.4 B 54 banking India
329 Micky Jagtiani $4 B 61 retail India
346 Cyrus Poonawalla $3.9 B 71 biotech India
376 Adi Godrej & family $3.6 B 71 Consumer goods India
376 Jamshyd Godrej & family $3.6 B 64 Consumer Goods India
395 Sri Prakash Lohia $3.4 B 60 Polyester Indonesia
395 Anil Agarwal $3.4 B 59 mining, metals India
412 Kalanithi Maran $3.3 B 47 media India
437 Gautam Adani $3.1 B 50 commodities, infrastructure India
490 Shahid Khan $2.9 B 62 auto parts United States
554 Malvinder & Shivinder Singh $2.6 B 40 healthcare India
613 Subhash Chandra $2.4 B 62 media India
613 Desh Bandhu Gupta $2.4 B 75 pharmaceuticals India
670 Brijmohan Lall Munjal $2.2 B 89 motorcycles India
670 Indu Jain $2.2 B 76 media India
704 Ajay Kalsi $2.1 B - oil India
704 Pankaj Patel $2.1 B 60 pharmaceuticals India
736 Rahul Bajaj $2 B 74 motorcycles India
736 Rajan Raheja & family $2 B 58 diversified India
736 Bharat Desai & family $2 B 60 outsourcing United States
785 Romesh T. Wadhwani $1.95 B 65 Software United States
792 Benu Gopal Bangur $1.9 B 81 cement India
831 Chandru Raheja $1.8 B 72 real estate India
831 Rishad Naoroji $1.8 B 61 Consumer goods India
922 Kavitark Ram Shriram $1.65 B 56 venture capital, Google United States
931 Ajay Piramal $1.6 B 57 pharmaceuticals India
965 N.R. Narayana Murthy & family $1.55 B 66 software India
965 Habil Khorakiwala $1.55 B 70 pharmaceuticals India
974 Brij Bhushan Singal $1.5 B 76 steel India
974 M.A. Yusuff Ali $1.5 B 57 retail India
974 K. Anji Reddy & family $1.5 B 71 pharmaceuticals India
974 Vinod Khosla $1.5 B 58 venture capital United States
974 Ashwin Dani $1.5 B 70 paints India
974 Manoj Bhargava $1.5 B 60 5-Hour Energy United States
1024 Vikas Oberoi $1.45 B 42 real estate India
1031 Mangal Prabhat Lodha $1.4 B 57 real estate India
1031 Ravi Jaipuria $1.4 B 58 soft drinks India
1088 Senapathy Gopalakrishnan & family $1.35 B 58 software India
1107 Ranjan Pai $1.3 B 40 education India
1107 Murali Divi & family $1.3 B 62 pharmaceuticals India
1107 Nandan Nilekani & family $1.3 B 57 software India
1107 Aloke Lohia $1.3 B 54 Polyester Thailand
1161 Venugopal Dhoot $1.25 B 61 electronics India
1161 Rakesh Jhunjhunwala $1.25 B 52 investments India
1175 Baba Kalyani $1.2 B 64 engineering India
1175 Thomas Sandell $1.2 B 52 hedge funds Sweden ?
1175 Mofatraj Munot $1.2 B 68 real estate India
1175 Yusuf Hamied $1.2 B 76 pharmceuticals India [half-Jewish]
1268 G. M. Rao $1.1 B 62 infrastructure India
1342 Jitendra Virwani $1 B 47 real estate India
1342 Nirav Modi $1 B 42 Diamond jewelry India
1342 Asok Kumar Hiranandani $1 B 58 real estate Singapore
1342 Joy Alukkas $1 B 56 Jewelry India
1342 T.S. Kalyanaraman $1 B 65 Jewelry India
1342 Binod Chaudhary & family $1 B 58 diversified Nepal

Black
43 Aliko Dangote $16.1 B 56 cement, sugar, flour Nigeria
267 Mike Adenuga $4.7 B 59 telcom, oil Nigeria
490 Patrice Motsepe $2.9 B 51 mining South Africa
503 Oprah Winfrey $2.8 B 59 television United States
736 Isabel dos Santos $2 B 40 investments Angola
1268 Mohammed Ibrahim $1.1 B 66 communications United Kingdom

Related posts:

• 2009 Forbes 400 by ethnic origins
• 2010 Forbes 400 by ethnic origins
• 2010 Forbes 400 by ancestry: more statistics
• Ethnic origins of US attendees of 2013 World Economic Forum in Davos
• The world's richest Jews (an incomplete list)
• Ethnic origins of Forbes world billionaires (2013)

[Rank Name Net Worth Age Residence Source]

Northwestern European (204/400)
1 Bill Gates 66 57 Medina, Washington Microsoft
2 Warren Buffett 46 82 Omaha, Nebraska Berkshire Hathaway
4 Charles Koch 31 77 Wichita, Kansas diversified
4 David Koch 31 72 New York, New York diversified
6 Christy Walton & family 27.9 58 Jackson, Wyoming Wal-Mart
7 Jim Walton 26.8 65 Bentonville, Arkansas Wal-Mart
8 Alice Walton 26.3 63 Fort Worth, Texas Wal-Mart
9 S. Robson Walton 26.1 69 Bentonville, Arkansas Wal-Mart
11 Jeff Bezos 23.2 49 Seattle, Washington Amazon.com
16 John Mars 17 76 Jackson, Wyoming candy
16 Jacqueline Mars 17 73 The Plains, Virginia candy
16 Forrest Mars, Jr. 17 81 Big Horn, Wyoming candy
20 Paul Allen 15 60 Mercer Island, Washington Microsoft, investments
23 Phil Knight 13.1 75 Hillsboro, Oregon Nike
27 Abigail Johnson 11.8 51 Milton, Massachusetts money management
28 Laurene Powell Jobs & family 11 49 Palo Alto, California Apple, Disney
28 Jack Taylor & family 11 90 St. Louis, Missouri Enterprise Rent-A-Car
32 Anne Cox Chambers 10.7 93 Atlanta, Georgia media
35 Harold Hamm 9.7 67 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma oil & gas
36 Rupert Murdoch 9.4 82 New York, New York News Corp
36 Richard Kinder 9.4 68 Houston, Texas pipelines
41 Andrew Beal 8.4 60 Dallas, Texas banks, real estate
44 Philip Anschutz 7.6 73 Denver, Colorado investments
45 Eric Schmidt 7.5 57 Atherton, California Google
47 James Goodnight 7.3 70 Cary, North Carolina Software
49 Harold Simmons 7.1 81 Dallas, Texas investments
50 Charles Butt 6.9 75 San Antonio, Texas supermarkets
52 Edward Johnson, III. 6.5 82 Boston, Massachusetts Fidelity
56 John Menard, Jr. 6 73 Eau Claire, Wisconsin Retail
57 John Malone 5.6 72 Elizabeth, Colorado cable television
59 Jeffrey Hildebrand 5.5 54 Houston, Texas Oil
61 Jim Kennedy 5.4 65 Atlanta, Georgia media
61 Blair Parry-Okeden 5.4 62 Scone media
63 Ray Lee Hunt 5.2 70 Dallas, Texas oil, real estate
63 Dennis Washington 5.2 78 Missoula, Montana construction, mining
67 Richard DeVos 5.1 87 Holland, Michigan Amway
69 Robert Rowling 4.9 59 Dallas, Texas investments
69 Hank & Doug Meijer 4.9 - Grand Rapids, Michigan supermarkets
71 Gordon Moore 4.8 84 Woodside, California Intel
72 Scott Duncan 4.7 30 Houston, Texas pipelines
72 Randa Williams 4.7 51 Houston, Texas pipelines
72 Milane Frantz 4.7 43 Houston, Texas pipelines
72 Dannine Avara 4.7 49 Houston, Texas pipelines
72 Charles Johnson 4.7 80 Hillsborough, California Money Management
77 Rupert Johnson, Jr. 4.6 72 Burlingame, California money management
79 Trevor Rees-Jones 4.5 61 Dallas, Texas Oil & Gas
79 Ann Walton Kroenke 4.5 64 Columbia, Missouri Wal-Mart
79 David Green 4.5 71 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma retail
89 S. Truett Cathy 4.2 92 Hampton, Georgia Chick-fil-A
92 Stanley Kroenke 4 65 Columbia, Missouri sports, real estate
92 Barbara Carlson Gage 4 71 Long Lake, Minnesota hotels, restaurants
92 Bruce Halle 4 82 Paradise Valley, Arizona Discount Tire
92 Thomas Frist, Jr. & family 4 74 Nashville, Tennessee health care
92 William Koch 4 72 Palm Beach, Florida oil, investments
92 Marilyn Carlson Nelson 4 74 Long Lake, Minnesota hotels, restaurants
100 Patrick McGovern 3.9 75 Hollis, New Hampshire media
100 Nancy Walton Laurie 3.9 61 Henderson, Nevada Wal-Mart
104 Gayle Cook 3.7 79 Bloomington, Indiana medical devices
104 Charles Schwab 3.7 75 Atherton, California discount brokerage
108 John Sall 3.6 65 Cary, North Carolina software
108 Paul Tudor Jones, II. 3.6 58 Greenwich, Connecticut hedge funds
113 Henry Ross Perot, Sr. 3.5 82 Dallas, Texas computer services, real estate
113 Tom & Judy Love 3.5 75 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma retail & gas stations
120 George Lucas 3.3 68 San Anselmo, California Star Wars
128 Ron Burkle 3.1 60 London, United Kingdom supermarkets, investments
128 Ken Griffin 3.1 44 Chicago, Illinois hedge funds
128 Donald Trump 3.1 66 New York, New York Television, Real Estate
132 Gwendolyn Sontheim Meyer 3 51 Rancho Santa Fe, California Cargill Inc.
132 Tamara Gustavson 3 51 Malibu, California self storage
132 Pauline MacMillan Keinath 3 79 St. Louis, Missouri Cargill Inc.
132 John Arnold 3 39 Houston, Texas hedge funds
132 Whitney MacMillan 3 84 Minneapolis, Minnesota Cargill Inc.
132 Archie Aldis Emmerson 3 84 Redding, California timberland, lumber mills
132 Charles Dolan & family 3 86 Oyster Bay, New York cable television
142 Riley Bechtel 2.9 61 San Francisco, California engineering, construction
142 Diane Hendricks 2.9 66 Afton, Wisconsin roofing
142 Stephen Bechtel, Jr. 2.9 87 San Francisco, California engineering, construction
150 James Jannard 2.8 63 San Juan Islands, Washington sunglasses
151 Martha Ingram & family 2.7 77 Nashville, Tennessee book distribution, transportation
151 Imogene Powers Johnson 2.7 83 Racine, Wisconsin SC Johnson & Sons
151 S. Curtis Johnson 2.7 57 Racine, Wisconsin SC Johnson & Sons
151 David Rockefeller, Sr. 2.7 97 Sleepy Hollow, New York Standard Oil, banking
151 Jerry Jones 2.7 70 Dallas, Texas Dallas Cowboys
151 Helen Johnson-Leipold 2.7 56 Racine, Wisconsin SC Johnson & Sons
151 Warren Stephens 2.7 56 Little Rock, Arkansas investment banking
151 H. Fisk Johnson 2.7 54 Racine, Wisconsin SC Johnson & Sons
151 Winnie Johnson-Marquart 2.7 54 Virginia Beach, Virginia SC Johnson & Sons
151 Robert Bass 2.7 65 Fort Worth, Texas oil, investments
170 David Bonderman 2.6 70 Fort Worth, Texas leveraged buyouts
170 Julian Robertson, Jr. 2.6 81 New York, New York hedge funds
170 Herbert Kohler, Jr. & family 2.6 74 Kohler, Wisconsin plumbing fixtures
170 Amos Hostetter, Jr. 2.6 76 Boston, Massachusetts cable television
170 Rodney Lewis 2.6 59 San Antonio, Texas natural gas
170 Robert Holding 2.6 - N/A oil, resorts
179 Phillip Ruffin 2.5 78 Las Vegas, Nevada casinos, real estate
179 Timothy Headington 2.5 63 Dallas, Texas oil & gas, investments
179 Ronda Stryker 2.5 58 Portage, Michigan medical technology
179 John Doerr 2.5 61 Woodside, California venture capital
179 Peter Buck 2.5 82 Danbury, Connecticut Subway Restaurants
190 Marianne Liebmann 2.4 59 Bozeman, Montana Cargill, Inc.
190 Randal Kirk 2.4 59 Belspring, Virginia pharmaceuticals
190 James Cargill, II. 2.4 64 Birchwood, Wisconsin Cargill Inc.
190 Mary Alice Dorrance Malone 2.4 63 Coatesville, Pennsylvania Campbell Soup
190 H. Wayne Huizenga 2.4 75 Fort Lauderdale, Florida investments
190 David Murdock 2.4 90 Los Angeles, California Dole, real estate
190 Austen Cargill, II. 2.4 62 Livingston, Montana Cargill Inc.
190 Jack Dangermond 2.4 67 Redlands, California mapping software
190 Robert Rich, Jr. 2.4 72 Islamorada, Florida frozen foods
190 Elon Musk 2.4 41 Los Angeles, California Tesla Motors
190 Ray Dolby 2.4 80 San Francisco, California Dolby Laboratories
190 Ty Warner 2.4 69 Oak Brook, Illinois Beanie Babies
206 William Randolph Hearst, III. 2.3 63 San Francisco, California Hearst Corp
206 Kelcy Warren 2.3 57 Dallas, Texas pipelines
206 Bill Gross 2.3 69 Newport Beach, California investments
206 Wilbur Ross, Jr. 2.3 75 Palm Beach, Florida investments
218 Henry Hillman 2.2 94 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania investments
218 William Wrigley, Jr. 2.2 49 North Palm Beach, Florida chewing gum
229 Peter Kellogg 2.1 70 Short Hills, New Jersey investments
229 Stanley Hubbard 2.1 79 St. Paul, Minnesota DirecTV
229 David Duffield 2.1 72 Blackhawk, California Business Software
229 James Coulter 2.1 53 San Francisco, California leveraged buyouts
229 Walter Scott, Jr. 2.1 81 Omaha, Nebraska construction, telecom
229 Jim Davis & family 2.1 69 Newton, Massachusetts New Balance
229 Albert Ueltschi 2.1 95 N/A FlightSafety
239 Gordon Getty 2 79 San Francisco, California Getty Oil
239 J. Christopher Reyes 2 59 Lake Forest, Illinois food distribution
239 Jude Reyes 2 57 Kenilworth, Illinois food distribution
239 Lee Bass 2 56 Fort Worth, Texas oil, investments
239 Edward Bass 2 68 Fort Worth, Texas oil, investments
239 Richard Peery 2 74 Palo Alto, California real estate
239 George Mitchell 2 93 The Woodlands, Texas oil & gas
239 Ted Turner 2 74 Atlanta, Georgia cable television
250 Austin Hearst 1.9 60 New York, New York Hearst Corp
250 Bennett Dorrance 1.9 67 Paradise Valley, Arizona Campbell Soup
250 David Hearst, Jr. 1.9 67 Los Angeles, California Hearst Corp
250 Richard Marriott 1.9 74 Potomac, Maryland hotels
250 Clayton Mathile 1.9 72 Brookville, Ohio pet food
250 Clemmie Spangler, Jr. 1.9 81 Charlotte, North Carolina investments
250 Brad Kelley 1.9 56 Franklin, Tennessee tobacco
250 B. Wayne Hughes 1.9 79 Lexington, Kentucky self storage
250 William Conway, Jr. 1.9 63 McLean, Virginia leveraged buyouts
250 Phoebe Hearst Cooke 1.9 86 San Francisco, California Hearst Corp
271 Robert McNair 1.8 76 Houston, Texas energy, sports
271 Thomas Siebel 1.8 60 Woodside, California business software
271 Drayton McLane, Jr. 1.8 76 Temple, Texas Wal-Mart, logistics
271 Dean White 1.8 89 Crown Point, Indiana billboards, hotels
271 Frederick Smith 1.8 68 Memphis, Tennessee FedEx
271 Sid Bass 1.8 70 Fort Worth, Texas oil, investments
284 Gerald J. Ford 1.75 68 Dallas, Texas banking
285 Jonathan Nelson 1.7 56 Providence, Rhode Island Leveraged buyouts
285 Judy Faulkner 1.7 69 Madison, Wisconsin health IT
285 Meg Whitman 1.7 56 Atherton, California Ebay
285 Steve Case 1.7 54 McLean, Virginia AOL
285 Glen Taylor 1.7 72 Mankato, Minnesota printing
298 Jim Justice, II. 1.6 61 Lewisburg, West Virginia coal
298 Johnelle Hunt 1.6 81 Fayetteville, Arkansas trucking
298 Bill Marriott, Jr. 1.6 81 Potomac, Maryland hotels
298 Gary Magness 1.6 59 Denver, Colorado cable, investments
311 John Henry 1.5 63 Boca Raton, Florida sports
311 Craig McCaw 1.5 63 Hunts Point, Washington telecom
311 Chase Coleman, III. 1.5 37 New York, New York hedge fund
311 Thomas Lee 1.5 68 New York, New York leveraged buyouts
311 Ray Davis 1.5 71 Dallas, Texas pipelines
311 Bob Parsons 1.5 62 Scottsdale, Arizona web hosting
311 Richard Schulze 1.5 72 Bonita Springs, Florida Best Buy
328 Alfred James Clark 1.4 85 Vero Beach, Florida construction
328 Pat Stryker 1.4 57 Fort Collins, Colorado medical technology
328 Farris Wilks 1.4 61 Cisco, Texas natural gas
328 Peter Thiel 1.4 45 San Francisco, California Paypal, Facebook
328 Henry Ross Perot, Jr. 1.4 54 Dallas, Texas computer services, real estate
328 Scott Cook 1.4 60 Woodside, California Intuit
328 Richard Hayne 1.4 65 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Urban Outfitters
328 Dan Wilks 1.4 56 Cisco, Texas natural gas
328 James Dinan 1.4 53 New York, New York hedge funds
345 Kevin Plank 1.35 40 Lutherville, Maryland Under Armour
345 Christopher Goldsbury 1.35 70 San Antonio, Texas salsa
347 Gary Burrell 1.3 75 Spring Hill, Kansas navigation equipment
347 Louis Bacon 1.3 54 Long Island, New York hedge funds
347 Richard Scaife 1.3 80 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania investments
347 Sean Parker 1.3 33 New York, New York Facebook
347 Billy Joe (Red) McCombs 1.3 85 San Antonio, Texas real estate, oil, cars
347 Henry Nicholas, III. 1.3 53 Newport Coast, California semiconductors
360 David Filo 1.2 47 Palo Alto, California Yahoo
360 Richard Chilton Jr 1.2 54 Darien, Connecticut hedge funds
360 T. Boone Pickens 1.2 84 Dallas, Texas oil & gas, investments
360 Tom Benson 1.2 85 New Orleans, Louisiana New Orleans Saints
360 Todd Wagner 1.2 52 Dallas, Texas online media
360 Bruce Nordstrom 1.2 79 Seattle, Washington Retailing
360 Jimmy Haslam 1.2 59 Knoxville, Tennessee retail
360 Patrick Ryan 1.2 75 Winnetka, Illinois insurance
360 Graham Weston 1.2 49 New Braunfels, Texas web hosting
360 John Brown 1.2 78 Portage, Michigan Stryker Corp.
360 Charlotte Colket Weber 1.2 70 Hobe Sound, Florida Campbell Soup
360 Kenny Troutt 1.2 65 Dallas, Texas telecommunications
360 Jon Stryker 1.2 54 Kalamazoo, Michigan medical technology
360 Mark Stevens 1.2 53 Atherton, California venture capital
360 James Clark 1.2 69 Palm Beach, Florida Netscape
360 Christopher Cline 1.2 55 North Palm Beach, Florida coal
360 Bernard Saul, II. 1.2 81 Chevy Chase, Maryland banking, real estate
388 Kenneth Adams, Jr. 1.15 90 Houston, Texas Oil
391 Neal Patterson 1.12 63 Loch Lloyd, Missouri health IT
392 William Macaulay 1.1 67 Greenwich, Connecticut energy investments
392 Peter Lewis 1.1 79 Coconut Grove, Florida insurance
392 Jack Dorsey 1.1 36 San Francisco, California technology startups

Jewish (140/400)
3 Larry Ellison 41 68 Woodside, California Oracle
10 Michael Bloomberg 25 71 New York, New York Bloomberg LP
12 Sheldon Adelson 20.5 79 Las Vegas, Nevada casinos
13 Larry Page 20.3 40 Palo Alto, California Google
13 Sergey Brin 20.3 39 Los Altos, California Google
15 George Soros 19 82 Katonah, New York hedge funds
19 Steve Ballmer 15.9 57 Hunts Point, Washington Microsoft
21 Carl Icahn 14.8 77 New York, New York leveraged buyouts
22 Michael Dell 14.6 48 Austin, Texas Dell
24 Donald Bren 13 80 Newport Beach, California real estate
25 Len Blavatnik 12.5 55 London diversified
26 Ronald Perelman 12 70 New York, New York leveraged buyouts
28 John Paulson 11 57 New York, New York hedge funds
28 James Simons 11 74 East Setauket, New York hedge funds
33 George Kaiser 10 70 Tulsa, Oklahoma oil & gas, banking
36 Mark Zuckerberg 9.4 28 Palo Alto, California Facebook
39 Charles Ergen 9 60 Denver, Colorado EchoStar
40 Steve Cohen 8.8 57 Greenwich, Connecticut hedge funds
43 Leonard Lauder 7.7 80 New York, New York Estee Lauder
46 Samuel Newhouse, Jr. 7.4 85 New York, New York Conde Nast
51 Donald Newhouse 6.6 83 Somerset County, New Jersey Conde Nast
52 Ira Rennert 6.5 78 Sagaponack, New York investments
52 Ralph Lauren 6.5 73 New York, New York Ralph Lauren
55 Eli Broad 6.3 79 Los Angeles, California investments
57 David Geffen 5.6 70 Malibu, California movies, music
59 David Tepper 5.5 55 Livingston, New Jersey hedge funds
63 Stephen Schwarzman 5.2 66 New York, New York private equity
63 Richard LeFrak & family 5.2 67 New York, New York real estate
68 Micky Arison 5 63 Bal Harbour, Florida Carnival Cruises
83 Stephen Ross 4.4 72 New York, New York real estate
83 Leslie Wexner 4.4 75 New Albany, Ohio retail
85 Robert Ziff 4.3 46 New York, New York investments
85 Daniel Ziff 4.3 41 New York, New York investments
85 Bruce Kovner 4.3 68 New York, New York hedge funds
85 Dirk Ziff 4.3 49 North Palm Beach, Florida investments
89 Leonard Stern 4.2 75 New York, New York real estate
91 Sumner Redstone 4.1 89 Beverly Hills, California Viacom
92 Henry Kravis 4 69 New York, New York leveraged buyouts
100 Ted Lerner 3.9 87 Chevy Chase, Maryland real estate
103 Sam Zell 3.8 71 Chicago, Illinois real estate, private equity
104 George Roberts 3.7 69 Atherton, California leveraged buyouts
108 Malcolm Glazer & family 3.6 84 Palm Beach, Florida sports teams, real estate
113 Sheldon Solow 3.5 84 New York, New York real estate
113 Lynn Schusterman 3.5 74 Tulsa, Oklahoma oil & gas, investments
113 Leon Black 3.5 61 New York, New York private equity
118 Mitchell Rales 3.4 56 Potomac, Maryland manufacturing
118 Ronald Lauder 3.4 69 New York, New York Estee Lauder
120 Jeffrey Skoll 3.3 48 Woodside, California Ebay
120 Steven Rales 3.3 62 Washington, District of Columbia manufacturing
125 Karen Pritzker 3.2 55 Branford, Connecticut hotels, investments
125 Edward Lampert 3.2 50 Miami Beach, Florida hedge funds
125 Steven Spielberg 3.2 66 Pacific Palisades, California movies
128 Haim Saban 3.1 68 Beverly Hills, California television
132 Jerry Speyer 3 72 New York, New York real estate
142 Doris Fisher 2.9 81 San Francisco, California Gap
142 Alfred Taubman 2.9 89 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan real estate
142 David Shaw 2.9 62 New York, New York hedge funds
151 Bernard Marcus 2.7 83 Atlanta, Georgia Home Depot
151 Israel Englander 2.7 64 New York, New York hedge funds
151 Stanley Druckenmiller 2.7 59 New York, New York hedge funds
151 Dustin Moskovitz 2.7 28 San Francisco, California Facebook
151 Joan Tisch 2.7 87 New York, New York diversified
151 Jeremy Jacobs, Sr. 2.7 73 East Aurora, New York sports concessions
179 Anthony Pritzker 2.5 52 Los Angeles, California hotels, investments
179 Steve Wynn 2.5 71 Las Vegas, Nevada casinos, hotels
179 Jay Robert (J.B.) Pritzker 2.5 48 Chicago, Illinois hotels, investments
190 Phillip Frost 2.4 76 Miami Beach, Florida pharmaceuticals
190 Mortimer Zuckerman 2.4 75 New York, New York real estate, media
206 Mark Cuban 2.3 54 Dallas, Texas online media
206 John Fisher 2.3 51 San Francisco, California Gap
206 Michael Milken 2.3 66 Los Angeles, California investments
206 Nicolas Berggruen 2.3 51 Beverly Hills, California investments
206 Isaac Perlmutter 2.3 70 Palm Beach, Florida Marvel
206 Robert Kraft 2.3 71 Brookline, Massachusetts New England Patriots
206 Daniel Och 2.3 52 Scarsdale, New York hedge funds
218 George Lindemann & family 2.2 77 Palm Beach, Florida investments
218 Jeff Greene 2.2 58 Palm Beach, Florida real estate, investments
218 Thomas Pritzker 2.2 62 Chicago, Illinois hotels, investments
218 Leon G. Cooperman 2.2 69 Short Hills, New Jersey hedge funds
218 Herbert Simon 2.2 78 Indianapolis, Indiana real estate
218 Marc Benioff 2.2 48 San Francisco, California business software
218 Stewart and Lynda Resnick 2.2 - Beverly Hills, California agriculture, water
229 Neil Bluhm 2.1 75 Chicago, Illinois real estate
229 Reid Hoffman 2.1 45 Palo Alto, California LinkedIn
229 Anita Zucker 2.1 61 Charleston, South Carolina chemicals
239 Herbert Allen, Jr. & family 2 73 New York, New York investment banking
250 Daniel Gilbert 1.9 51 Franklin, Michigan Quicken Loans
250 Donald Sterling 1.9 77 Beverly Hills, California Real Estate
250 Jean (Gigi) Pritzker 1.9 51 Chicago, Illinois hotels, investments
250 Michael Moritz 1.9 58 San Francisco, California venture capital
250 David Rubenstein 1.9 63 Bethesda, Maryland leveraged buyouts
271 S. Daniel Abraham 1.8 88 Palm Beach, Florida Slim-Fast
271 Penny Pritzker 1.8 53 Chicago, Illinois hotels, investments
271 John Pritzker 1.8 60 San Francisco, California hotels, investments
271 Henry Samueli 1.8 58 Newport Beach, California semiconductors
271 Ken Fisher 1.8 62 Woodside, California Money management
271 Barry Diller 1.8 71 New York, New York IAC/InterActiveCorp
285 Daniel Pritzker 1.7 54 Marin County, California hotels, investments
285 David Gottesman 1.7 86 Rye, New York investments
285 Glenn Dubin 1.7 56 New York, New York hedge funds
285 Thomas Friedkin 1.7 77 Houston, Texas Toyota distribution
285 Robert Fisher 1.7 59 San Francisco, California Gap
285 Noam Gottesman 1.7 51 New York, New York hedge funds
285 William Fisher 1.7 56 San Francisco, California Gap
298 Stewart Rahr 1.6 67 New York, New York drug distribution
298 Norman Braman 1.6 80 Miami, Florida art, car dealerships
298 Linda Pritzker 1.6 59 St. Ignatius, Montana hotels, investments
298 Joshua Harris 1.6 48 New York, New York private equity
311 James Irsay 1.5 53 Carmel, Indiana Indianapolis Colts
311 Marc Rowan 1.5 51 New York, New York private equity
311 James Pritzker 1.5 61 Chicago, Illinois hotels, investments
311 Thomas Kaplan 1.5 50 New York, New York Investments
311 Arthur Blank 1.5 70 Atlanta, Georgia Home Depot
311 Howard Schultz 1.5 59 Seattle, Washington Starbucks
311 Irwin Jacobs 1.5 79 La Jolla, California Qualcomm
311 Ron Baron 1.5 69 New York, New York money management
328 Bruce Karsh 1.4 57 Los Angeles, California private equity
328 Elaine Wynn 1.4 70 Las Vegas, Nevada casinos, hotels
328 Michael Price 1.4 60 Far Hills, New Jersey investments
328 Gary Michelson 1.4 64 Los Angeles, California medical patents
328 Alexander Knaster 1.4 54 London, United Kingdom oil, telecom, banking
328 Wilma Tisch 1.4 85 New York, New York diversified
328 Howard Marks 1.4 67 Los Angeles, California money management
347 Robert Friedland 1.3 62 Singapore, Singapore mining
347 Daniel Loeb 1.3 51 New York, New York Hedge Funds
347 Alan Gerry 1.3 83 Liberty, New York cable television
347 Marc Lasry 1.3 52 New York, New York hedge funds
347 Thomas Steyer 1.3 55 San Francisco, California hedge funds
359 Evgeny (Eugene) Shvidler 1.25 49 London, United Kingdom oil & gas, investments
360 Stephen Mandel, Jr. 1.2 57 Greenwich, Connecticut hedge funds
360 David Einhorn 1.2 44 Westchester County, New York Hedge Fund
360 Leon Charney 1.2 71 New York, New York Real estate
360 Edmund Ansin 1.2 77 Miami Beach, Florida television
360 Nelson Peltz 1.2 70 Bedford, New York investments
360 Sidney Kimmel 1.2 85 New York, New York retail
360 Henry Swieca 1.2 55 New York, New York hedge funds
388 Peter Sperling 1.15 53 Phoenix, Arizona education
388 Alexander Rovt 1.15 60 New York, New York fertilizer, real estate
392 Paul Singer 1.1 68 New York, New York hedge funds
392 Dan Snyder 1.1 48 Potomac, Maryland Washington Redskins

Italian (17/400)
33 Ray Dalio 10 63 Greenwich, Connecticut hedge funds
92 John Paul DeJoria 4 69 Austin, Texas hair products, tequila
108 John A. Sobrato & family 3.6 73 Atherton, California real estate
151 Edward DeBartolo, Jr. 2.7 66 Tampa, Florida shopping centers
170 James Leprino 2.6 75 Indian Hills, Colorado cheese
179 Fred DeLuca 2.5 65 Fort Lauderdale, Florida Subway Restaurants
190 A. Jerrold Perenchio 2.4 82 Bel Air, California television
250 Daniel D'Aniello 1.9 66 Vienna, Virginia leveraged buyouts
271 Leandro Rizzuto 1.8 75 Sheridan, Wyoming consumer products
297 Joe Mansueto 1.65 56 Chicago, Illinois investment research
298 Stephen Bisciotti 1.6 53 Millersville, Maryland outsourcing, football
298 Kenneth Langone 1.6 77 Sands Point, New York investments
298 Tilman Fertitta 1.6 55 Houston, Texas restaurants, casinos
298 Tom Golisano 1.6 71 Naples, Florida Payroll Services
347 Thomas Secunda 1.3 58 Croton-on-Hudson, New York Bloomberg
392 Mario Gabelli 1.1 71 Greenwich, Connecticut money management
392 Denise York 1.1 62 Youngstown, Ohio real estate

East Asian (9/400)
47 Patrick Soon-Shiong 7.3 61 Los Angeles, California pharmaceuticals
79 Jin Sook & Do Won Chang 4.5 58 Beverly Hills, California Forever 21
108 Roger Wang 3.6 64 Nanjing, China retail
142 Victor Fung & family 2.9 67 Hong Kong trading company
170 John Tu 2.6 72 Rolling Hills, California computer hardware
170 David Sun 2.6 61 Irvine, California computer hardware
218 Min Kao 2.2 64 Leawood, Kansas navigation equipment
239 Andrew & Peggy Cherng 2 - Los Angeles, California Panda Restaurant Group
360 Jerry Yang 1.2 44 Los Altos Hills, California Yahoo

Eastern European (7/400)
77 Thomas Peterffy 4.6 68 Greenwich, Connecticut discount brokerage
104 Edward Roski, Jr. 3.7 74 Los Angeles, California real estate
120 Barbara Piasecka Johnson 3.3 76 N/A Johnson & Johnson
120 Steven Udvar-Hazy 3.3 67 Beverly Hills, California aircraft leasing
132 Terrence Pegula 3 62 Boca Raton, Florida natural gas
151 Michael & Marian Ilitch & family 2.7 83 Bingham Farms, Michigan pizza
190 Igor Olenicoff 2.4 70 Lighthouse Point, Florida real estate

Middle Eastern (7/400)
42 Pierre Omidyar 8.2 45 Honolulu, Hawaii Ebay
142 Kirk Kerkorian 2.9 95 Beverly Hills, California casinos, investments
179 Tom Gores 2.5 48 Beverly Hills, California private equity
206 Richard Rainwater 2.3 68 Fort Worth, Texas real estate, energy, insurance
250 Alec Gores 1.9 60 Beverly Hills, California private equity
311 Joe Jamail, Jr. 1.5 87 Houston, Texas lawsuits
392 George Joseph 1.1 91 Los Angeles, California insurance

Greek (6/400)
132 John Catsimatidis 3 64 New York, New York oil, real estate, supermarkets
218 Tor Peterson 2.2 48 Zug, Switzerland Glencore International
250 Michael Jaharis 1.9 84 New York, New York pharmaceuticals
250 George Argyros 1.9 76 Newport Beach, California real estate, investments
360 C. Dean Metropoulos 1.2 66 Greenwich, Connecticut investments
360 Peter Peterson 1.2 86 New York, New York Blackstone Group

South Asian (6/400)
179 Shahid Khan 2.5 62 Naples, Florida auto parts
239 Bharat Desai & family 2 60 Fisher Island, Florida outsourcing
250 Romesh T. Wadhwani 1.9 65 Palo Alto, California Software
298 Kavitark Ram Shriram 1.6 56 Menlo Park, California Venture capital, Google
311 Manoj Bhargava 1.5 60 Farmington Hills, Michigan 5-Hour Energy
328 Vinod Khosla 1.4 58 Portola Valley, California venture capital

Hispanic (3/400)
250 John Arrillaga [Basque] 1.9 75 Portola Valley, California real estate
360 Jorge Perez [Cuban] 1.2 64 Miami, Florida condos
392 Arturo Moreno [Mexican] 1.1 66 Phoenix, Arizona billboards

Black (1/400)
151 Oprah Winfrey 2.7 59 N/A television

But, from the Middle Neolithic onwards, DNA patterns more closely resembled those of people living in the area today, pointing to a major - and previously unrecognised - population upheaval around 4,000 BC.

Co-author Prof Alan Cooper, from the University of Adelaide in Australia, said: "What is intriguing is that the genetic markers of this first pan-European culture, which was clearly very successful, were then suddenly replaced around 4,500 years ago, and we don't know why.

"Something major happened, and the hunt is now on to find out what that was." [. . .]

A significant contribution appears to have been made in the Late Neolithic, by populations linked to the so-called Bell Beaker archaeological culture. Sub-types of haplogroup H that are common today first appear with the Beaker people and the overall percentage of individuals belonging to the H clan jumps sharply at this time.

The origins of the "Beaker folk" are the subject of much debate. Despite having been excavated from the Mittelelbe Saale region of Germany, the Beaker individuals in this study showed close genetic similarities with people from modern Spain and Portugal.

Other remains belonging to the Late Neolithic Unetice culture attest to links with populations further east.

"We have established that the genetic foundations for modern Europe were only established in the Mid-Neolithic, after this major genetic transition around 4000 years ago," said co-author Dr Wolfgang Haak.

"This genetic diversity was then modified further by a series of incoming and expanding cultures from Iberia and Eastern Europe through the Late Neolithic."

Haplogroup H dominates present-day Western European mitochondrial DNA variability (>40%), yet was less common (~19%) among Early Neolithic farmers (~5450 BC) and virtually absent in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. Here we investigate this major component of the maternal population history of modern Europeans and sequence 39 complete haplogroup H mitochondrial genomes from ancient human remains. We then compare this ‘real-time’ genetic data with cultural changes taking place between the Early Neolithic (~5450 BC) and Bronze Age (~2200 BC) in Central Europe. Our results reveal that the current diversity and distribution of haplogroup H were largely established by the Mid Neolithic (~4000 BC), but with substantial genetic contributions from subsequent pan-European cultures such as the Bell Beakers expanding out of Iberia in the Late Neolithic (~2800 BC). Dated haplogroup H genomes allow us to reconstruct the recent evolutionary history of haplogroup H and reveal a mutation rate 45% higher than current estimates for human mitochondria.

The (sold out!) 2013 Genomes, Environments and Traits (GET) Conference is taking place this Thursday and Friday in Boston. We are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the DNA double helix with an amazing line-up of speakers and Labs.

You may watch the live webcast for free via our new channel at Fora.TV: get2013.fora.tv.

We investigate the relationship between intelligence and bribing behavior in a simple one-shot game of corruption. We find a robust relationship between intelligence and the probability of bribing in which a higher intelligence quotient (IQ) leads to a lower probability of bribing in the game. This result holds after controlling for other determinants such as gender, attitude toward corruption, and perceptions of corruption. By revealing the gender of the matched player, we also show that gender perceptions of corruption are strong determinants of bribery.

This study finds that countries with high-IQ populations enjoy less corruption. I propose that this is because intelligent people have longer time horizons.

The current study, based on the nationally representative NLSY data, follows incarceration over a 24-year period. This represents the longest prospective examination of the NLSY crime data to date, since previous analyses have been shorter and is not prospective (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). With the aim of providing greater confidence in the results, unlike prior analyses the current study uses three major criminological outcomes (onset, incidence and frequency of incarceration), and not one (incidence of incarceration). Based on theoretically reformulated associations between the study variables, the results show that low IQ, low parental SES and their interaction modestly predict the incidence of, frequency of and time to incarceration.

Theoretically, a low IQ may make coping and decision-making difficult and increase the likelihood of crime. Taken in isolation the association between low IQ and increased risk of crime in the current results may be taken as evidence that is consistent with the Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). Concurrently, however, the present results also indicate that a low parental SES increases the risk of crime, potentially through an inadequate familial environment (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). These family characteristics may include little emphasis on social attainment. Thus, the current findings indicate that the family environment may provide a route to influence the association between IQ and crime. This possibility is not considered in the Bell Curve view on crime that emphasizes neighborhood SES (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994), and is consistent with opponents to the Bell Curve (Fischer et al., 1996).

Collectively, however, the effects of IQ and parental SES on crime are modestly amplified, as captured by the interaction reflecting unfavorable conditions (i.e., particularly if both IQ and parental SES are low). A possible explanation of this interaction is that a disadvantaged home environment does not encourage social attainment and a low IQ makes coping and decision-making difficult. Taken together this increases the likelihood of crime. Thus these findings support an interactional perspective of crime. Their interpretation is consistent with the usually competing theoretical notions that contrast low SES (Fischer et al., 1996) or low IQ (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) as factors that increase the likelihood of crime. [. . .]

This study does not separate genetic–environmental influences, unlike past research (e.g., Koenen, Caspi, Moffitt, Rijsdijk, & Taylor, 2006). SES may not purely be an environmental factor that is unrelated to IQ. Parents may give children both genes for IQ and SES (i.e., passive gene–environment associations), and a parent’s SES is partly based on their IQ as a result of life-long active gene–environment interactions. Accordingly, IQ and SES may be moderately correlated due to common genetic influences. Also, as the participants in this study mature, they become increasingly free to create their own environments, partly due to both IQ and SES. The current study, however, affords no assessment of genetics, or upward or downward social mobility, thereby highlighting key directions for future research.

• Can racial differences in circulating testosterone explain racial differences in crime?
• What explains racial differences in crime?
• More on race, crime, and intelligence
• Why criminals are less intelligent than non-criminals