246 Prof. Huxley w/>ow Archseopteryx lithographica. [Jan. 30 



And this view is pictorially embodied in the restoration of the humerus 

 of ArchcBopteryx given in Plate II. fig. 1. 



But a most distinct line of matrix separates the humerus from the promi- 

 nence 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 cora- 

 coid in birds and pterodactyles. 



I think, then, there can be no question that the parts marked 51' and 

 c 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 obviously 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. Never- 

 theless 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 inno- 

 minatum 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 po- 

 sitions 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-vertebrse should have turned round so 

 as to present their ventral aspect to the eye, as they do according to the 

 memoir {I. c. p. 44). 



But I apprehend that evidence can be found in the vertebrae themselves 

 sufficient to prove that their dorsal and not their ventral faces are turned 

 towards the eye. In several of the best-preserved of these vertebrae, in fact, 

 (and Plate I. imperfectly shows this,) the remains of two small articular 

 poocesses are distinctly visible at each end of the vertebra. The superior 

 surface of each articular process is raised into a low longitudinal ridge ; and 

 the posterior pair of processes lie at the sides of a narrow, parallel-sided 

 plate of bone, which projects beyond the posterior edge of the vertebra, 

 and is received between the anterior articular processes of the vertebra which 

 succeeds it. A low linear longitudinal elevation occupies the place of 

 spinous process. 



If my interpretation of these appearances is correct, it is clear that the 

 caudal vertebrae (as was to be expected) turn their dorsal faces to the eye. 



7. One important and extremely conspicuous bone, the furculum (if it 

 be such), undoubtedly turns its ventral surface to the eye; and I cannot 

 but suspect that it is the bouleversement of this bone which has led to that 

 reversal of the proper nomenclature of the other bones which, could it be 



