260 MEMOIRS OF THE CARNEGIE MUSEUM 
that the bones in this specimen of Cryptoclidus are located in the position which 
they held when first found. Fig. 28 is a view of the scapular girdle of the same 
specimen viewed from directly in front and showing the clavicles lying on the dor- 
sal surface of the scapula. ‘To place the supposed clavicles of Diplodocus in the 
position shown above in Figs. 25 and 26 has therefore the analogy of the location of 
the clavicles in the skeleton of Cryptoclidus to support it. 
In the second place, against the employment of these bones as clavicles is the 
fact that, so treated, their articulation with the margin of the scapula and the cora- 
coid where the latter bones unite must be made by a bifid extremity. The writer, 
from an anatomical standpoint, does not contemplate such an articulation as this 
with satisfaction. It is without analogy in other forms to support it. He knows 
of no case among recent cr extinct reptiles where the articulation of the clavicles 
with the scapular elements takes place by means of bifid extremities. 
Fic. 28. Anterior view of the pectoral girdle of Cryptoclidus. (l., clavicle; Cor., coracoid; Sc., scapula. 
(Drawn by Miss Alice B. Woodward. ) 
Baron F. Nopsca, Jr., who occasionally called upon the writer while at work 
upon the restoration, has since caused a paper to be presented at a meeting of the 
Zodlogical Society of London which has been published (ef. P. Z. S., London, 1905, 
Vol. IL, Part L., p. 269). In this paper the Baron undertakes to break a lance in 
defence of the suggestion made by Mr. Hatcher, that this bone might possibly have 
had the function of an os penis. Against this view there is very much to be said. 
As Mr. Hatcher pointed outin Volume LI. of the Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, 
p. 74, “The marked asymmetry of the bone” offers a potent argument against the 
probability of this assumption. At the time that I was experimenting at South 
Kensington, in the endeavor to utilize these bones as clavicles, I had with me only 
a reproduction of the specimen which had been found in connection with skeleton 
No. 662, but since my return to the Carnegie Museum I have very carefully re- 
