Trexel did not examine these canals; their length and direction would have thrown light on the subject. The fact of fecundation may also be explained by supposing that during coition the posterior wall of the vagina supplied the place of the absent floor of the urethra, thus forming a complete canal. This is the most probable explanation."[47] The above case, as stated, had passed for a woman; these cases are by no means such rarities. The case of Marie Dorothee, mentioned by Debierre in his work, was as peculiar. Hufeland and Marsina had pronounced Marie a woman, while Stark and Martens pronounced her a man, and Metzger could not determine on the sex. The case of Valmont, noticed by Bouillaud and Manee, is on a par with that of Giraud, in which the party was married as belonging to one sex and where it was not until after death ascertained that the person belonged to the other sex. Valmont had a hypospadic urethra and penis; a scrotum without testicles; ovaries with the Fallopian tubes; a uterus opened into a vagina of two inches in length, which, gradually narrowing, ended in the male urethra, to which was attached a prostate gland. Valmont contracted marriage as a man and was not discovered to have been a female until the autopsy revealed her to be a woman. The relation does not state anything in regard to menstruation; so that her condition in that regard is unknown.[48] There has also been reported a number of cases in the male analogous to the double organed female mentioned by Debierre. Geoffrey St. Hilare reports a case where the penis was double, one being above the other, urine and semen flowing through both urethras. Gore mentioned a like case to the Academy in 1844. Dr. Vanier (Du Havre) records the case reported by Huguier to the Academy, where the organs in the anatomical preparation which he exhibited were so anomalous that it was impossible to decide the sex. Aside from the medico-legal aspects that these cases present, there is an interesting Jewish theological question connected with them. The law is explicit as to circumcision; the cases presenting, if males, should be circumcised, but how to determine the sex where an autopsy alone will decide the question is not defined. It has been decided, in such cases where the presumption is that the child is of the male sex, that, like in cases of absence of prepuce, a suppositious circumcision should be performed, so that the covenant should be observed; this being in keeping with the sentiment shown by the Jews when persecuted by the Romans, or, later, by the Spaniards, who often were not able to circumcise until after death; but they never fail to comply with the covenant as far as it is possible.