The Size of the Articular Surfaces of the Long Bones As Characteristic of Sex; an Anthropological Study

THE SIZE OF THE ARTICULAR SURFACES OF THE LONG BONES AS CHARACTERISTIC OF SEX; AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL STUDY.

BY THOMAS DWIGHT, M. D., LL. D., Parkman Professor of Anatomy at the Harvard Medical School. WITH 6 PLATES.

The pelvis has long been recognized as a reliable guide to the sex of the skeleton and still longer as the greatest peculiarity of the female figure. From twenty to thirty years ago several papers appeared on the means of determining the sex of the skull. It is, I think, now generally admitted that the skull is of value in the hands of an expert; but the late Professor Brinton very near the end of his life declared that apart from the pelvis there is no guide to the sex among the bones. Hyrtl (1) long ago wrote : " I find the difference between the male and female sternum so clearly expressed by the proportion of the manubrium to the body that it is hardly possible to err in determining the sex. The manubrium of the female sternum exceeds in length that of half the body; while in the male sternum it is at least twice as long as the manubrium. I (2) was able to show on sufficiently large series that while this was true of the average male and female sterna, it was not true of about 40 per cent of the individual instances, so that it was very possible indeed to err in determining the sex by that means. Prob- ably the rule applies to well-formed bodies, but not to a large proportion of those that we meet with. The femur again is a bone that is to the expert of much value. A typical male and a typical female femur can hardly be mistaken; but practically there are a great many thigh bones, perhaps 75 per cent, on which an expert would be unwilling to give an opinion by methods hitherto in use. Without going so far as Professor Brinton, we may say that with our present methods, excepting the pelvis, and even this is not always conclusive, in the great majority of cases the expert must form his opinion of the sex of bones from their general appearance, and that comparatively rarely can he speak (still excluding the pelvis) with any great certainty. AMBIRICANJOURNAL OF ANATOMY.-VOL.IP. 20 Size of Articular Surfaces of Long Bones

The purpose of this paper is to present a new method, which indeed J have suggested before, but which I had not established by a sufficient series of observations ; namely, the relatively small size of the articular surfaces of the long bones in the female. If this be true it clJrtainly deserves a place among the laws of anthropology. While I believe that this applies to the long bones in general, I have limited the demon- stration of the principle to the heads of the humerus and femur. In the Shattuck lecture on the Range and Significance of T7ariation in the Human Skeleton, which I had the honor of giving before the Massachusetts Medical Society in 1894 (3), I advanced the opinion that the size of the articular surfaces of the limbs has an important sexual significance. I mentioned that I had studied the dimensions and propor- tions of the glenoid cavity of the scapula on 63 male and 27 female bones. Its average length in the male bones was 3.92 em. and in those of the female 3.36 em. Very few male ones were less than 3.6 cm. and very few female as long. Though I had made observations on the bones of the arm and forearm I had no series large enough to quote; but I spoke more in detail of the observations on 64 femora on which many measurements had been taken, and which came from bodies that had been measured before dissection. After discussing some of the more common features as guides to determine the sex, I said: “ Some other measurements seem to throw more light on this matter. They tend to establish the theory that the small size of joints is characteristic of woman. They are the greatest diameter of the head of the femur and the greatest transverse breadth through the condyles. The average diameter of the male head is 4.8 em., that of the female 4.15. My tables show one marked difference between the sexes; namely, that in the women there is a fairly regular increase in the size of the head cor- responding with the increase in length of the femur. Among men this is not so. While it is true that most of the largest heads are found in the longer half of the bones and most of the smallest in the shorter half, the correpondence is far less evident. I find, moreover, that but two male heads have a diameter of less than 4.5 em., and but two of the female a greater. Both these female bones were among the longest, but the two male were but little below the average. Thus it would seem that the actual measurement of the head of the femur is a pretty good criterion of the sex. The measurements of the knee are less conclusive. The average difference is just under one centimeter (8.3 and 7.3), but there are more that overlap.” Dr. Hepburn (4) published jn 1896 measurements of femora of many races, one of the measurements hejng that of the head. He did not, Thomas Dwight 21 however, make any attempt to consider the sexual significance of the head. In fact, there were but few females among the bodies of Europeans from which the bones were taken. He mentions, however, incidentally, that the diameter of the head of the male femur was never below 40 mm., except among the Andamans; and also that a diameter below 40 was found in several female bones of various races. Dr. Dofsey (5) published in 1897 a paper recording observations on the long bones of American aborigines in which he tested the accuracy of my views, taking the greatest diameter of the head of the humerus and of the femur and also the breadth of the upper end of the tibia. The sex was first decided from the .pelvis. His results from the heads of the bones of 135 skeletons of various races of both North and South America were very strikingly in confirmation of the value of the size of the joints as a sexual characteristic. “ Thus, if the maximum diameter of the head of the humerus of any American skeleton measure 44 mm., the chances are extremely great that it is a male; if it measure 45 mm.. it is a male to a practical certainty. The inference to be drawn from the measurements of the femur seem almost, if not quite, equally valuable; and it would almost seem that we could determine the sex from the femur alone with a great deal more certainty than we could from the skull. After Professor Jwight’s disparaging remarks about his results from measurements through the condyles of the femur, I was quite unpre- rared for the results which have been derived from the tibia. The range of variation is, to be sure, greater than it is for either the humerus or the femur; and this, it may be repeated, is largely due to the discrepancy in stature between the North and South American skeletons, but the dividing line for the two sexes, between 71 mm. and 72 mm., is almost as sharp as it is for the femur, and makes the tibia a valuable aid for the determination of sex.” Although I was satisfied that the principle that the small size of ioints is characteristic of woman is correct, I felt that it should be established by a series of measurements large enough to be beyond question. Accord- ingly, I undertook to make the measurements of the head of one humerus and one femur of 100 male and as many female bodies. Those of white adults only were used. The head of the humerus was measured in both the vertical and the transverse diameter, .the object being to get the greatest diameter for each, even if it deviated somewhat from the strictly vertical or transverse plane. In the femdr the greatest possible diameter was carefully sought for. The measurements were made with blunt calipers. The bodies were those used for anatomy and surgery in the Harvard Medical School. I took the measurements when the cartilage was still 22 Size of Articular Surfaces of Long Bones fresh. This is certainly proper for the purpose of an anthropological study as it represents the size of the joints as they are in life. Moreover, on many dried bones, the cartilage remains as a very thin layer, which, though amounting to little, causes a discrepancy between those bones and others in which it has been quite removed. The question of what deduction from diameters thus obtained should be made in comparing them with those from dry bones shall be considered later. When I had obtained these measurements on 100 male and 100 female bones I tabulated the results and drew the curves. While the results seemed to establish the law, the curves were so irregular that it seemed certain that they could hardly show a true mean. I then made 50 more examinations in each sex, and again was dissatisfied with the curves, and undertook 50 more. Thus I have now the measurements of 400 bones equally divided between the sexes. Owing to the relative scarcity of female subjects, I think the additional hundred measurements of female bones has retarded me by nearly three years. The bones were those of white adults, and in every case the humerus and femur were both measured, so that comparisons can be made between the upper and lower extremity. It was not possible to restrict the measurements to bones of one side, as post-mortem injury or some pathological blemish often rendered at least one of the joints unavailable. They seem to establish the point at issue. The averages are as follows

Read of Humerus. Head of Femur. Vertical. Transrerse. Male...... 48.76 mm. 44.66 mm. 49.68 mm. Female ...... 42.67 '1 38.98 " 43.84 " __ ~ __ Difference.. . . . 6.09 mm. 5.68 mm. 5.84 mm.

The above average measurements of the female are to the respective male ones as 87.51, 87.28 ; and 88.24 are to 100. (Plates I, I1 and 111.) It is easy to see by the curves (Plates I, I1 and 111) that there is only 1 male with a vertical diameter of the head of the humerus below that of the average female, and only 2 females with the same diameter above that of the average male. Taking the transverse diameter of the head of the humerus we find 2 males below the female average, and 3 females above the male average. With the head of the femur we have but 1 male below the female average and but 1 female above the male average. Taking separately the three series, each of 400 measurements, the following deductions may be made : Thomas Dwight 23

Head of Humerus, vertical diameter. In the 36 smallest 0 male. In the 51 largest 0 female. '6 y4 Ll 1 ii i' 85 " 1 LL ii 133 16 4 ii " 111 'L 2 ii LL 171 ti g '6 it I35 1~ 3 (6 '4 165 (1 10 '6 Head of Humemu, transverse diameter. In the 55 smallest 0 male. In the 42 largest 0 female. " y4 'I 2 66 6' 69 LC 1 6' 6' 126 CL 3 it " 107 " 3 " ii 155 ii 7 ci LL 139 LL 5 LL ct 177 LL g LL

fiad of Temw, greatest diameter. In the 36 smallest 0 male. In the 51 largest 0 female. 'L 83 11 1 11 '6 107 si 1 (6 'L 119 (1 4 iL '1 133 6' 3 '6 (6 154 '1 6 (6 6' 168 6' 17 ''

Continuing this line of comparison I was anxious to divide the bones into a smaller and a larger half, and to see how many male bones were among the 200 smaller and how many female among the 200 larger, taking each of these diameters successively. Unfortunately the groups did not allow this division to be made without putting some of a group of equals into the smaller and some in to the larger half. It seems to me that this can be done very properly; but that all may judge of this for themselves I give the process in detail. Thus in the vertical measurements of the head of the humerus there were 204 bones measuring 45 mm. and less, and 196 measuring more than 45 mm. The number measuring 45 mm. was nearly equal in both sexes, there being 16 male and 17 female. Thus if 4 of this group, 2 of each sex, were transferred from the smaller bones to the larger, there would be two divisions of 200 each, obtained by the transfer of only 1 per cent of the whole. In the smaller 200 there would be 23 (11.5 per cent) of the male and 177 (88.5 per cent) of the female. In the second half these figures would be reversed. In the series of the transverse diameter of the head of the humerus there were 191 bones measuring 41 mm. or less and 209 measuring more than 41 mm. Among the male bones were 14 of 42 mm., and among the female 18; by transferring 9 of these, 4 male and 5 female (2.25 per cent of the whole), to the smaller bones, we had 200 in each division arraqged as follows: In the smaller 200 there were 22 male (11 per cent), and 178 female (89 per cent). In the larger 200 these figures were reversed. In the case of the head of the femur there were 195 of 46 mm. or less, and 205 of more than 46 mm. There were 3'1 measuring 47 mm., of which 22 were male and 15 female. By transferring 3 male and 2 female from the larger to the smaller bones, we once more have 200 24 Size of Articular Surfaces of Long Bones in each division, the transfer being 1.25 per cent. In the smaller 200 there were 30 male (15 per cent), and 170 female (8.5 per cent). In the larger 200 these figures were reversed. Surely these results are very convincing, and the manipulation by which two even halves are obtained quite justifiable. Let us now inspect the curves. It stands to reason that there must be some overlapping. It is self-evident that the joints of all males cannot be larger than those of all females, even of the same race. I have already given the figures which show how surprisingly few of either sex pass beyond the average of the other sex; that is, how few male bones are below the female average and how few female bones above the male average. Now these curves show that if we suppress a small percentage composed of erratic individuals, the overlapping is remarkably small and restricted to a very narrow debatable ground. The curve of the vertical diameter of the humerus (Plate I) shows that the smallest male measurement is 41 mm. and the largest female 50 mm. Thus there is an overlapping extending through half the breadth of the two curves. There are 313 individual measurements overlapping (78.25 per cent). But the chart shows clearly that this wide spread of overlapping is due to a few aberrant specimens. If we take away only 9 male and 10 female (4.75 per cent), the number of overlapping bones is reduced to 64, or 16.80 per cent of the remaining 381. What is most remarkable is that after this elimination of extreme formxtions, the overlapping is limited to diameters of 45 and 46 mm.' The curve of the transverse diameter of the head of the humerus (Plate 11) is very similar; 303 overlap (75.75 per cent), but if 7 male and 9 female (4 per cent) are thrown out only 68 bones (17.71 per cent) of the remainder overlap ; and the Overlapping is limited to bones measuring 41 and 42 mm. The curve of the head of the femur (Plate 111) is interesting inas- much as there are fewer aberrant bones to remove and yet greater ulti- mate overlapping. Originally 313 bones (78.25 per cent), (precisely the same as in the vertical diameter of the humerus) overlap, but of these only 6 male and 3 female (2.25 per cent) are sufficiently isolated to justify their removal, after which 113 (28.90 per cent) of the remainder still overlap. Moreover, the overlapping includes three millimeters, namely, 46, 47 and 48 mm., instead of only two, as in both diameters of the humerus.

'That part of the curves represented by a continuous line shows them as they would be after this elimination. Thomas Dwight 25

Even the last is far from a bad rcsult and shows that the size of the head of the femur has a great sexual significance, but distinctly less than that of the head of the humerus. The averages show the same thing, though less strikingly. The main thesis seems thus to be established. Let us now consider whether any particular shape of the articular head is more characteristic of either sex than another. As we have begun by assuming that the head of the femur is spherical, there can be no question about that; but as the head of the humerus has a long and a short diameter the question is possible. From some old observations on the glenoid cavity I had come to the conclusion that the head of the female bone is narrower than that of the male, and this is supported by the averages; but to such a minute degree as to be unworthy of consideration. As already stated, the female head of the humerus measures 87.51 per cent of the male in the vertical direction, and 87.28 in the transverse. The average difference in the former direction is 6.09 mm., and in the latter 5.68 mm. The transverse diameter is 91.59 per cent of the vertical in the male, and 91.36 per cent in the female. I then went to work on the individual differences between the vertical and the transverse diameters. The range of differences extends from -1 to 8 mm. The former means that in one single female bone the transverse diameter was 1 mm. greater than the vertical. No difference whatever was found in 3 males and 2 females. The difference was 1 mm. in 10 males and 13 females; the greatest difference, 8 mm., was found in 2 of each sex. Differences of 6 and 7 mm. were found much more frequently among the males than the females, as is to be expected from the greater size of the former. Running through a number of cases in both sexes in which the difference was slight and of others in which it was large, I was quite unable to see anything that pointed to a sexual difference in this respect sufficiently marked to be worth recording. 1 was unequally unsuccessful in trying to ascertain whether, regardless of sex, a long or a round head of the humerus was to be expected more frequently in large or small bones. I endeavored to ascertain whether the difference between the head of the humerus and that of the femur Tras greater in one sex (probably the female) than the other, but I failed again. The average difference of the vertical diameters showed a difference to the advantage of the femur of .92 mm. for the male, and 1.17 mm. for the female. On the other hand, the transverse diameter gave the femur an advantage of 5.02 mm. in the male, and 4.86 in the female. Study of indi- 26 Size of Articular Surfaces of Long Bones vidual cases of large and small bones did not give any encouragement to undertake the labor of elaborate tabulation. We come now to the very important feature of this series of observations that the measurements were made on bones with the articular cartilage not only in place, but not dried. As above mentioned, this is the proper method, as it shows the parts as they are in life, giving the true size of the joints; but there is the serious consideration that most observations are made on dried bones, so that one needs to know what allowance is to be made for the absence of the cartilage. What compli- cates the matter is that the conditions for the humerus and for the femur are not the same. In measuring the practically globular head of the femur, the greatest diameter passes through the centre of the sphere and traverses the whole thickness of the cartilage on both sides of the head. With the humerus the conditions are very different. Both the long and the short diameter, especially the former, run through the bone just at the insertion of the shaft into the head, that is, at the border of the articular cartilage which narrows around the margin of the head so as to be extremely thin. I have been at great trouble to find a method of determining how much to allow for the cartilage and can find none that is satisfactory. I think that from 2 mm. to 3 mm. should be allowed for the femur, and tliat .5 or 1 mm. is enough for the humerus. When the work was far advanced I regretted that I had contented myself with measuring only the heads instead of taking the length and perhaps the thickness of the bones. Although as a practical anatomist I know that no one would think of determining the sex of either of these bones by its length, I felt that it would be difficult to answer anyone who might ask how I could be certain that there is a greater discrepancy between the articular heads of the bones than between their lengths. I had recourse to Dr. Hrdlicka of the National Museum of Washington, who came to my rescue with measurements of bones of 200 white adults, 100 of each sex, made by him at the Medical Department of Colum- bia University of New York. The sources from which these bones came are perhaps a little more diverse than those that lead to Boston, but not, 1 believe, very much so. I have already shown that the dissecting room material in Boston does not in the least represent any single race.' That from New York is only somewhat more heterogenous. In short this collection of measurements of the length is, failing that of the bones on which the joints were measured, as good as could be expected. It is quite good enough for the very general conclusions I shall draw. I wish to express my deep obligations to Dr. Hrdlicka for his kind generosity in this matter, by which I am enabled to compare with this series of meas- Thomas Dwight 27 urements of 400 articular heads of humerus and as many of that of the femur a series of the length of 200 humeri and 200 femora, equally divided between the sexes. The length of the thigh bone was taken by the bicondylar method. The greatest possible length of the arm bones was recorded. All the measurements were of bones of the right side. It is very evident that the difference between the bones of the arm and thigh in the matter of length are much less important sexually than those of the diameters of the heads. In comparing the curves (Platee IV and V) it is to be remembered that the observation of the lengths are but half as numerous as those of the joints. The average length of the male humerus is 32.46 cm., that of the female 29.98 em., which is 92.36 per cent of that of the male. The average male femur measures 44.95 em., the female 41.55 cm., or 92.44 per cent of the former. The diameter of the head of the female femur approaches that of the male rather more closely than either of the diameters of the head of the humerus, yet its percentage is only 88.24. Before plotting the curves, the millimeters were suppressed, each bone being recorded as iat the nearest centimeter. Cases which came at precisely half a centimeter were put at the lower mark. I pointed out in the case of the joints how very few male ones were below the female average, and how very few female ones above the male average. It is easy to see by consulting the curves of the lengths, in which the averages have been marked, that though there are only half as many observations there are, especially in the case of the female femora, decidedly more beyond the line. The contrasts between the two sets of series when divided into a smaller and a larger half are very instructive. Let us take first the length of the humerus. If the dividing line be put between 31 and 32 cm., we find 119 in the first division and 81 in the second. In the former there are 22 male and 23 female bones measuring 31 cm. If we transfer 9 males and 10 femaIes (9.5 per cent of the whole) we have 100 in each division. There are 24 males in the shorter 100 and 24 females in the longer 100, i. e., 24 per cent of each sex in the wrong half. If we draw the dividing line for the femora between 43 and 44 em., we have 118 in the shorter division and 82 in the longer. There are 16 male and 16 Pemale bones measuring 43 em. If we transfer 9 of the former and 9 of the latter (9 per cent) to the longer division we again have two divisions of 100. Among the shorter 100 are 27 (27 per cent) male, and among the longer 27 female (27’ per cent). A glance at the former statement of this manipulation with the diameters of the joints will show that the percentage of specimens transferred was insignificant, never over 2.25 per cent, and the result much better. 28 Size of Articular Surfaces of Long Bones

Let us now compare the curves. At first sight they give no hint of the difference which analysis reveals. The curves of the joints show an original overlapping in the order in which they are given of 78.25, 75.75 and 78.25 per cent repectively. The curve of the length of the humerus shows 89 per cent overlapping, and that of the femur 82 per cent, but in the case of the joints the amount of overlapping was wonderfully reduced by the eiimination of a few stragglers, respectively 4.75, 4. and 2.25 per cent, the percentages of overlapping dropping to 16.80, 17.71 and 28.90 of the remainder. In the tables of the length a much larger elimination brings about much less satisfactory results. Thus with the humerus the elimination of 15 bones (7.5 per cent), reduced the overlapping of the remainder only to 41.62 per cent; and with the femur the rejection o€ 15 bones (7.5 per cent) still leaves the overlapping of the remainder at 46.49 per cent. This is a very significant difference. Thus it is demonstrated that the difference in the size of the articular surfaces in the sexes is very much niore mar.lied than that of the length of the respective bones. Although I have not established it by figures, 1have no hesitation in saying that it is also much more marked than the difference in the thickness of bones. A striking illustration of this is furnished by the photograph (Plate TI) of a male and a female humerus, side by side, so placed as to show the articular heads as well as possible. There is very little difference in the length and in the thickness, but the much greater size of the joint shows at a glance which is the male. What is most interesting is that the male bone came from the body of a very puny young man of nineteen, who being blind, had passed his life in an almshouse doing very little work. I remember him particularly from the fact that he had but one kidney. My personal recollection of the body of the woman from which the female bone was taken is less sharp; but she is said to have been of uncommonly powerful make. The muscular ridges on the bone confirm this, yet a glance at the head is so conclusive that it is needless to mark M hich is which. I have devoted a good deal of time to the glenoid cavity of the scapula, and more or less to other joints in the extremities. Although I cannot speak by the book, I feel very sure that the law which is deduced from the humerus and femur will be found to apply, though perhaps with more exceptions, to all the joints of the extremities. It should not need to be said that it is the province af such a law to bc a giiiilc to the,expert who will apply with discretion. Absolute certainty as to the sex of bones does not exist in all cases. The judgment matured by long observation is certainly better than any rigid adherence to a mathematical law. None the less, in many cases, the law of the relative smallness of the female Thomas Dwight 29 joints will go far to show the probability of what one may hesitate to affirm as absolutely certain. The following conclusions seem justified by this study of 400 humeri and femora of white adults: The heads of the humerus and femur are relatively small in woman. Probably the same may be said of other joints. Dorsey’s investigations show that this anthropological law applies also to savage races (or at least to some of them). The number of measurements of male joints smaller than the average female joint and of female ones larger than the average male is insignificant. In the transverse diameter of the head of the humerus the com- bined number is only 1.25 per cent, and in the head of the femur only .05 per cent. By rejecting a few aberrant specimens the overlapping in the curves of both diameters of the humerus is reduced to about 17’ per cent, and is limited to joints measuring 45 and 46 mm. vertically and to those measuring 41 and 42 mm. transversely. The head of the femur is somewhat less characteristic, but still very valuable as a guide to the sex. (These measurements were made with the articular cartilage in place and still fresh.) BIBLIOGRAPHY. 1. HYmL.-Topographische Anatomie. 2. DwIGHT.-Journal of Anat. and Phys., Vol. XV and XXIV. 3. DWIGHT.-Publications of the Mass. Med. Society. 4. HEPBURN.-JOUrIl. Of Anat. and PhyS., VOl. XXXI, p. 116. 6. D0RsEY.-Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, July 22, 1897. 6. DWIGHT.-AnatOmiSCher Anzeiger, Bd. X, s. 209.

DESCRIPTION OF PLATES I TO VI. PLATE1.-The binomial curves of the vertical diameter of the heads of 200 male and 200 female humeri expressed in millimeters. The female curve is on the left. PLATE11.-Ditto of the transverse diameter of the same. PLATE111.-Ditto of the greatest diameter of the head of the femur. PLATE1V.-The binomial curves of the length of 100 male and 100 female humeri (Dr. Hrdlicka’s) expressed in centimeters. The female curve is on the left. PLATEV.-Ditto of the length of the femur (Bicondylar) (Dr. Hrdlicka’s). The part of the curves drawn with a continuous line represents what they would be after the elimination of certain aberrant overlapping bones. PLATEV1.-The humerus of a strong woman and of a puny man. The sex is evident from the size of the heads of the bones. 30 Size of Articular Surfaces of Long Bones

APPENDIX. It is hoped that these figuresmay be of use. The humerus and femur in the same line always came from the earn8 body, hut no regard has been paid to the side. The measurements include the articular cartilage which was in good condition. DIAMETERS OF HEAD OF HUMERUS AND FEMUR. MALE.

HUMERUS. FEMUR. HUMERUS. FEMUR. HUMERUS. FEMUR. Vert. Trans. Vert. Trans. Vert. Trans. 1 53 47 49 46 45 50 46 41 51 2 52 48 48 46 40 46 49 46 51 3 43 39 46 50 44 50 49 44 46 4 45 42 47 48 43 48 49 49 56 5 45 44 47 54 52 52 52 50 51 6 46 43 46 52 47 52 47 44 46 7 62 47 54 51 45 54 52 46 50 8 45 40 46 55 48 53 50 46 51 '9 50 46 49 47 44 47 49 43 49 10 46 43 48 46 43 49 48 47 51 11 48 46 48 45 43 46 49 43 49 12 47 45 48 53 48 54 50 43 50 13 50 45 49 45 45 49 51 47 51 14 49 44 50 46 44 54 51 46 52 15 47 44 51 49 45 54 47 45 48 16 45 4'2 48 47 45 46 52 49 52 17 50 43 46 46 42 46 48 &L 48 18 44 43 49 50 44 52 53 46 53 19 41 38 42 45 41 46 50 45 55 20 48 44 47 51 46 52 51 45 52 21 48 44 52 46 43 46 49 44 53 22 45 42 45 51 47 48 51 47 52 23 48 46 49 51 46 53 47 43 50 24 46 42 47 52 46 52 47 44 60 25 43 42 44 46 45 50 53 48 51 28 46 43 48 53 44 52 49 44 50 27 45 43 56 45 43 47 45 41 49 28 48 43 47 50 43 46 46 43 46 29 43 41 47 48 44 50 55 47 54 30 52 46 54 46 42 46 46 41 49 31 50 46 51 46 40 51 44 42 46 32 44 42' 46 54 49 53 48 46 51 33 51 44 50 47 44 47 53 51 55 34 46 41 48 45 44 47 50 47 62 35 47 43 50 53 46 51 47 43 48 36 52 47 51 46 41 46 61 48 60 37 44 41 45 52 47 52 47 44 49 38 52 44 49 50 43 51 50 45 50 39 49 42 46 45 44 48 50 47 51 40 47 43 47 52 50 51 49 48 49 41 54 49 54 48 45 47 47 45 48 42 49 45 49 48 45 48 47 43 48 43 62 48 50 51 48 54 50 45 53 44 50 45 51 52 49 54 47 45 50 45 60 50 51 48 43 47 47 43 48 46 61 46 51 50 43 50 53 47 53 41 45 41 47 50 45 49 50 44 51 48 51 48 52 49 45 47 52 46 61 49 48 45 52 45 38 49 49 43 51 50 48 42 47 48 45 50 50 46 53 51 49 48 522 50 46 51 47 41 48 52 49 46 47 49 45 49 50 43 51 53 47 48 47 48 45 50 49 45 50 54 50 44 49 49 44 50 44 42 46 55 50 46 49 50 49 51 46 43 46 56 48 43 51 51 49 50 47 44 48 57 49 44 53 47 45 47 53 46 52 58 50 45 49 49 45 49 49 46 56 59 45 42 47 53 49 53 51 45 50 60 48 51 51 44 52 49 46 51 61 E 47 53 56 50 56 53 47 51 62 49 46 53 51 47 47 49 45 49 63 48 44 48 50 47 52 48 47 52 64 45 40 44 46 41 44 50 45 49 65 48 45 51 50 46 52 50 45 53 66 48 43 53 50 45 50 50 45 50 67 47 44 48 47 43 47 Thomas Dwight 31

DIAMETERS OF HEAD OF HUMERUS AND FEMUR. FEMALE.

HUMERUS. FEMUR. HUMERUS. FEMUR. HUMERUS. FEMUR. Vert. Trans. Vert. Trans. Vert. Trans. 1 42 39 42 68 45 40 48 135 43 39 46 2 43 39 42 69 43 40 42 136 44 39 46 3 42 37 44 70 38 36 39 137 47 43 48 4 43 38 40 71 40 36 40 138 44 39 45 5 42 39 43 72 40 38 42 139 47 43 47 6 46 42 46 Y3 44 40 46 140 40 38 44 7 43 38 42 74 39 36 40 141 44 39 47 8 44 42 46 75 43 38 45 142 42 40 46 9 44 40 49 76 45 42 48 143 44 41 45 10 41 38 41 77 38 35 39 144 43 40 43 11 45 40 44 78 42 37 40 145 45 37 44 1% 46 45 47 79 46 39 45 146 41 39 45 13 40 37 40 80 42 38 42 147 44 38 45 14 47 41 47 81 44 39 47 148 40 36 44 15 41 36 45 82 39 36 41 149 47 42 51 16 41 37 44 83 42 38 39 150 41 37 44 17 42 39 45 84 43 38 39 15 1 43 38 43 18 38 37 39 85 43 42 46 152 42 36 44 19 43 41 43 86 44 36 41 153 41 37 43 20 43 41 42 87 41 37 46 154 44 39 46 21 42 37 41 88 44 43 44 155 39 35 42 22 41 39 41 89 40 37 45 156 44 41 48 23 44 39 45 90 41 36 46 157 43 37 45 24 40 37 42 91 42 41 45 138 46 42 47 25 43 39 43 92 43 40 45 159 44 40 48 26 38 37 40 93 40 35 40 160 45 42 46 27 43 38 43 94 41 39 41 161 43 38 48 28 42 38 44 95 44 40 43 162 43 38 41 29 39 37 41 96 40 41 44 163 44 39 45 30 44 39 45 97 41 38 43 164 41 37 43 31 42 37 41 98 38 37 40 165 40 36 42 32 50 46 48 99 40 38 40 166 46 42 45 33 40 37 44 100 39 37 41 167 43 37 42 34 46 41 45 10 1 44 37 41 168 45 40 45 35 43 39 45 102 44 38 35 169 45 42 44 36 44 41 48 103 42 39 47 170 45 42 46 37 46 42 46 104 41 37 41 171 46 41 45 38 44 41 48 105 47 45 48 172 45 43 42 39 42 38 42 106 43 39 48 173 43 38 45 40 42 40 42 1V7 43 41 47 174 39 38 43 41 42 38 '44 108 43 40 48 175 42 38 43 42 39 36 42 109 44 40 43 176 45 40 45 43 42 37 44 110 40 37 43 177 44 41 46 44 39 37 38 111 43 41 45 178 40 36 42 45 45 41 112 43 39 47 179 43 41 45 46 49 42 fit 113 41 36 44 180 41 38 43 47 38 36 36 114 43 89 43 181 43 38 44 48 43 39 44 115 44 41 44 182 45 40 45 49 42 38 44 116 41 36 40 183 42 38 44 SO 42 38 43 117 40 38 45 184 45 41 47 51 45 44 48 118 43 38 41 185 47 42 47 52 43 41 43 119 39 36 40 186 46 42 48 53 43 40 45 120 43 37 44 187 4'2 40 43 54 38 36 37 121 40 36 44 188 43 40 45 55 42 39 44 122 42 36 40 189 44 39 45 56 43 40 45 123 42 36 42 190 44 38 44 57 46 41 49 124 41 38 42 191 42 41 45 58 42 38 44 125 44 42 47 192 46 44 47 59 40 36 4'3 126 42 39 42 193 44 42 44 60 41 38 44 127 48 42 46 194 44 40 46 61 41 38 42 128 41 39 42 195 45 40 43 62 43 42 46 129 44 39 43 196 42 37 44 63 39 36 44 130 42 39 46 19Y 41 40 44 64 47 41 48 13 1 44 41 47 198 43 39 45 65 42 38 47 132 41 37 42 199 45 41 46 66 44 40 44 133 40 38 44 200 42 41 45 61 39 35 38 134 46 40 46 SIZE OF ARTICULAR SURFACES OF LONG BONES PLATE I T. DWIGHT

Cn a W E 3 I

n 4W I W I c Y 0

w 4 2

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ANATOMY--VOL. IV 3 SIZE OF ARTICULAR SURFACES OF LONG BONES PLATE I1 T. DWIGHT

W I I- U. 0

a W Wt- I 5 n W (I) WK > zv) 2 c

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ANATOMY--VOL. IV SIZE OF ARTICULAR SURFACES OF LONG BONES PLATE Ill T. DWIGHT

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ANATOMY--VOL. IV SIZE OF ARTICULAR SURFACES OF LONG BONES PLAT'E IV T. DWIGHT

v) 3 aW E 2 I w I I- LL 0

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ANATOMY-VOL. IV SIZE OF ARTICULAR SURFACES OF LONG BONES PLATE V T. DWIGHT

a 3

U5 W I I- U 0 I I- zwa

W 4 E c

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ANATOMY-VOL. IV SIZE OF ARTICULAR SURFACES OF LONG BONES PLATE VI T. DWIGHT

FEMALE MALE

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ANATOMY--VOL. IV