[ 11 ] 
Under the umbilical vein, h. was the umbilical ar- 
tery on each fide, which went as ufual into the 
pelvis , and there fent off the ordinary ramifications. 
On the right fide, its anaftomofis with the iliac 
artery was very difcernible ; but on the left we could 
not difcover the iliac , a veffel which is pretty confi- 
derable, even in the foetus, and was fo on the other 
lide, as feen at letter I. 
On the left fide, the umbilical artery, at its origin, 
or its infle&ion, had a kind of web of arteries fubdi- 
vided, fome of which, doubtlefs, communicated 
with the aorta , or right iliac ; but neither of thefe 
branches appeared to be near the fize of the right 
iliac , nor could we find any thing any-wife like to 
the trunk, e. which I long fufpedted to be the trunk 
of the right iliac. 
What veffels then are thefe trunks, d. e. ? Which 
of the two is the continuation of the umbilical , h. ? 
This is a very important point, but not eafily deter- 
mined. It would not have proved fo, if I had in- 
jected the umbilical vein, as I generally do in all my 
monfters ; or if I had taken more care of the parts 
about the kidney-liver , which I certainly fhould have 
done, had I but fufpeCted fo many fingularities. 
I faid, that at firft fight, I took the trunk, e. to 
belong to the umbilical vein, and it is dill an opinion, 
to which I am inclined, for the following reafons. 
1. At this part, e. the aorta had its greateft cir- 
cumference; and, in tracing it from this trunk, above 
as v/ell as below, it grew lefs and lefs. This was, 
therefore, its trunk, or origin, and could not be a 
branch of it. 
C 2 2. I 
