Here our Author needed not, in this Example of Ambiguity, to be at a stand with regard to the Sex, for from his own account, the Child was Male, since the Testiculi were conspicuous, tho’ the Penis might not have been protruded; and where these are in a natural State, there cannot be (as is before amply proved) any Part proper to a Female in the same individual Body. As to the Passage that nature found for discharging the Urine, this could never have been a sufficient Reason for the doubt he seems to lie under, of the Sex, because there is so wide a Difference between such preter-natural Foraminulæ and the Pudenda Muliebria. He hints, that Nature was so kind to make that Passage on account of the want of the Penis, and yet is so loth to lose it quite, as to affirm that the Penis was not entirely wanting, but that it turn’d inward, and was carry’d down to the little Aperture under the Scrotum. This is a very odd kind of Structure, and in order to give Credit to our Author, we must first suppose such another Reflection of the Penis (first to be carried up before the Os Pubis, and then turn’d down again between that and the Scrotum to open under it) as that of the Aspera Arteria in the Sternum of the wild Swan. I cannot devise by what Means Credit should be given to such Narrations as these, which so far digress from human Nature’s Laws, when not accompanied with a very nice and particular anatomick Description of such Parts; and even that attested by Numbers of Persons equally skill’d in the same Science, or a publick Society of learned Men, whose Delight it is to enquire after Truth and rectify superstitious Allegations of all Kinds, especially in natural History. At last this Author, after informing us that the Child was received and baptiz’d by the People as a Male, and not a Female nor Hermaphrodite, concludes the Paragraph thus[85]: ‘But because such Subjects are better perceiv’d by the Understanding, than by Sight; I was not willing to represent it by any particular Figure.’ He was very much in the Right not to give a Figure of this Subject from his Imagination only, which, I am sure, he as well as several other Authors have done before, without any other Authority than the Tradition of the People.’ _REALD. COLUMBUS._ This Author[86] must not want a Place amongst the rest, who after he has given an account of the Dissection, mention’d in the Conclusion of this Treatise, proceeds to relate his Observations upon two Persons which he calls a Male Hermaphrodite, and a Female one; his Words are,[87] ‘I have moreover consider’d two living Hermaphrodites, one whereof was Male the other Female.’