262 MEMOIRS OF THE CARNEGIE MUSEUM 
extremity must have pointed upward and strongly to the right. If, however, leay- 
ing the direction of the flattened ends of the bones out of sight, we place the two 
with the flattened sides of their shafts in one position, so that the shafts occupy the 
same relative position, then the bone from No. 662 points downward, while the 
bone from No. 84 points upward and strongly to the left. It is wholly inconceivable 
to the writer that such absolutely dissimilar arrangements should exist in the case 
of the penis bone of any animal. Sectional drawings of the shafts of these bones 
also show that they are very different from each other. (See Fig. 30.) The bone 
Fic. 30. Sections one third of natural size of shafts of supposed clavicles. The upper figures represent sections 
taken four and one half inches from the bifid end of the bone, the lower figures represent sections taken nine and one 
half inches from the same point. The outlines of the bones themselves are reduced much more than one third and are 
wholly diagrammatic. That on the left is from skeleton No. 662, that on the right from skeleton No. 84. 
taken from skeleton No. 662 is very rib-like, the shaft having a flattened surface on 
one side and a convex surface on the other. The bone taken from skeleton No. 84 
has the same flattening on one side and a convexity on the other, though not so 
strongly developed. The bifid extremity of the bone from No. 662 shows that a 
small portion of one of the branches has been broken off, but irrespective of this 
fracture the end does not agree with the bone from skeleton No. 84 either in the 
shape or direction of the surfaces of the bifureating extremities. While Mr. Hatcher 
was inclined to the view that both bones represented specimens taken from the same 
side of the animal, it appears to the writer that they may very well be bones from 
opposite sides. Not only are these bones, therefore, asymmetrical, but they differ 
in a marked manner from each other to such an extent as to suggest that they did 
not occupy the same place in the skeleton, but were most probably from opposite 
sides. 
Finally, against the theory advanced with great hesitation and rejected by Mr. 
Hatcher, but which Baron Nopsca has undertaken to defend, that these bones 
might have functioned as ossa penis, is not only the fact of their asymmetry and 
