222 Royal Society :— 
Nevertheless I venture to affirm that 51! is the right scapula and 
not the left ; for it will not be denied that the anterior or glenoidal 
end of the bone, as it now lies, is directed forwards, its posterior or 
vertebral end backwards, and its glenoidal articular surface outwards 
and forwards: it would be quite impossible to put a left scapula of 
similar construction into this position. 
Further, the glenoidal end of this scapula remains in connexion 
with what is obviously the glenoidal (or humeral) end of the right 
coracoid (marked ¢ in plate i.). The author of the memoir, indeed, 
gives a different interpretation of the osseous projection thus marked 
l. ec. p. 37) :— . 
= The O asces beyond the left scapula (Plate I. 51’) sug- 
gested at first view the humeral end of the coracoid, but I believe it 
to be part of the humerus corresponding with the tuberosity on the 
ulnar side of the sessile semioval head, overarching the pneumatic 
foramen in the bird.” 
And this view is pictorially embodied in the restoration of the 
humerus of Archeopteryx given in plate ii. fig. 1. 
But a most distinct line of. matrix separates the humerus from the 
prominence in question, in which may be seen, with great clearness, 
the glenoidal facet of the coracoid, as well as the excavation of the 
exterior surface of the bone which is characteristic of the glenoidal, 
or humeral, end of the coracoid in birds and pterodactyles. 
I think, then, there can be no question that the parts marked 51! 
and ¢ in Plate I. of the memoir cited are the right scapula and the 
glenoidal end of the right coracoid, and not, as the author affirms, 
the left scapula and a tuberosity of the humerus. 
5. Even apart from the fact that the humerus marked 53! lies in 
almost undisturbed relation with the right pectoral arch, it is ob- 
viously a right humerus. On no other supposition can the relative 
position of the deltoid ridge and of the various contours of the bone 
be accounted for. Nevertheless this is called ‘‘ proximal half of left 
humerus (53'), entire, and part of the distal half” at p. 34 of the 
memoir cited. , 
It is probably needless to pursue this part of the inquiry any 
further. As the so-called right leg turns out to be the left, the so- 
called left os innominatum the right, and the so-called left scapula 
and wing-bones to be those of the opposite side of the body, the 
necessity of a corresponding rectification for the other limb-bones 
needs no evidence. 
6. As both the hind limbs and one-half of the pelvis have just 
such positions as they would readily assume if the hinder part of 
the animal’s body lay upon its ventral face, it is highly improbable 
(to say the least) that the caudal and posterior trunk-vertebre should 
have turned round so as to present their ventral aspect to the eye, as 
they do according to the memoir (/. c. p. 44). 
But I apprehend that evidence can be found in the vertebrae them- 
selves sufficient to prove that their dorsal and not their ventral faces 
are turned towards the eye. In several of the best-preserved of these 
vertebrze, in fact, (and plate i. imperfectly shows this,) the remains 
