468 
more strongly than that between it and the first. In spite of this I 
consider its connection much more intimate with the second. I know 
of nothing in comparative anatomy to give any significance to this 
bone. The appearance of the foot is quite against any pathological 
origin. I incline to think it the result of an accessory centre of the 
second cuneiform. 
Case 2 (Fig. 2) [Museum number 9390a—7]. The foot is that 
of a white man aged sixty years. The tarsal bones have no signs 
whatever of any pathological process but there are bony outgrowths 
of considerable size (rheumatoid?) about the interphalangeal joint of 
Putereun; 
Cale. sec, 
