Ossification does not take place with equal rapidity in every bone; the ribs and clavicles are completely converted into bone long before birth, while the bones of the carpus, tarsus, and more particularly the patella, are not completed until some years afterwards; certain parts of bones are not formed until after birth, as the mastoid processes, and the projections of the frontal sinus; nor are the epiphyses consolidated with the body of the bones, so as to constitute apophyses, until many years. With regard to the general developement of the skeleton after birth, it may be observed, that the proportion of cartilage is in an inverse ratio to the age; reckoning from the twentieth year backwards, the younger the subject the larger is its head, compared with the trunk and limbs; the smaller the bones of the face, but the larger the fontanelles; the flatter is the lower part of the face; the larger the chest, in relation to the pelvis; the shorter the limbs; the larger the clavicles; the smoother and flatter the broad bones, but the rounder those that are cylindrical. (See Albert Durer on the proportions of the bones, Lib. 1.) The chemical composition of the bones, in relation to their phosphate of lime, and gelatine, varies also very materially at different ages. It may be stated that the quantity of the former substance deposited in the texture of bones, is in the direct ratio of the age; the bones of the fœtus are at first entirely gelatinous; at the time of birth, and during the first years of life the organic part superabounds; in youth the quantity of each constituent is nearly equal; in adults the calcareous earth forms almost two-thirds of their substance; and finally, by gradual accumulation in old age, its excess obliterates the organized parts; so that the skeleton of the aged person may be distinctly recognised; besides which, the sutures of the skull are generally lost, and the absorption of the alveolar processes again imparts to the face the physiognomy of the infant.

The male and female skeleton may be said to differ, not only in the whole combination, or in the general impression, from a comparative survey, but also in the form and properties of the individual parts. The bones of the female are generally smaller, more delicate, and the muscular impressions, and asperities are less distinctly marked on them. The articulations are smaller, and the shaft or body of each cylindrical bone is more slender in comparison with the articular ends; the frontal sinuses are smaller, and the superciliary arches less prominent; all the bones of the face are more slender; the figure of the alveolar circle is more elliptical in both jaws; whereas in the male it is more circular. The differences, however, are in many cases very equivocal, since they may occur in the male as well as in the female skeleton; in the former, where the individual has had a feeble constitution, and never used active exercise; while in the latter, hard labour will frequently confer upon her bony structure the masculine contour which we have described as generally belonging to the male skeleton. The only decisive marks, therefore, by which a female skeleton can at once be distinguished, are to be found in the structure of the pelvis, and arise from the obvious cause of the female possessing a proper frame to become a mother. The pelvis of a female, at and below the linea innominata, formed by the lower part of the inside of the ileum, and ridge of the pubes, is much more capacious, from side to side, than in the male. The entrance or brim of the cavity is also more oval, the greatest diameter being from side to side. In the male it is more triangular, and the greatest diameter at the brim is from the fore to the back part; there is not much difference in the breadth of a male and female pelvis, belonging to individuals of nearly the same height, if measured from the anterior part of the spine of the ileum to the corresponding part of the opposite side; the difference in breadth is chiefly confined to the basin-like part of the cavity. The symphysis pubis is broader in the female, and the angle underneath it is much more obtuse, the space between the descending rami of the pubes is consequently larger. The sacrum is broader, less curved, and turned more backwards; this also adds to the capacity of the cavity. The os coccygis is more moveable, and much less bent forwards so that it does not project so much into the pelvis. The tuberosities of the ischia are farther distant from each other, and from the os coccygis; and as these three points are farther asunder, the notches between them are consequently wider, and there is of course a much greater space between the os coccygis and pubes; and lastly the whole pelvis is less massy, but more capacious and shallow in the female structure.[[45]] There are, moreover, some striking peculiarities to be discovered in the structure of the thorax, which if not equally satisfactory with that derived from a comparison of the pelvis, deserve serious attention. The whole thorax is shorter in the female, larger above as far as the fourth rib, narrower below; more moveable, less conical; more convex in front; more distant from the pelvis, the interval between the last rib, and the os innominatum being greater; less prominent anteriorly, so that when the trunk is supine, the symphysis pubis is the highest point in the female, whereas in the male subject, the thorax is the most elevated; the sternum is also shorter in the female, ending at the plane of the fourth rib, while it reaches to the plane of the fifth in the male; the clavicles are likewise less strongly curved, so that the scapulæ are thrown backwards; the female scapulæ are, moreover, smaller, slenderer, flatter, and have acuter angles than those of the male.

We have been thus minute in our endeavour to establish rules for discriminating between the male and female skeleton, because it has been a question of judicial inquiry. The supposed difficulty of ascertaining the sex of a skeleton constituted a principal feature in the celebrated defence of Eugene Aram for the murder of Daniel Clarke, and which, on account of its extreme ingenuity, has been introduced at length in our Appendix, p. [311].

In examining detached and isolated portions of the skeleton, we must take care not to mistake natural fissures and foramina for the effects of violence; we have already observed that the sagittal suture has been pronounced to be a fracture. But the most extraordinary illustration of such an error that can be adduced, is that presented to us in the history of a case that occurred at Exeter, and which the author of this work is enabled to present in an authentic form through the kind assistance of his friend, Wm. Tucker, Esq. of Coryton, Devonshire, a gentleman, who has been too long known, and too universally respected, as an active and upright magistrate, to render any panegyric necessary on the present occasion.

The Case of Thomas Bowerman.

Devonshire.——At the Devon Assizes in March, 1800, a Bill was preferred before the Grand Jury against Thomas Bowerman, for the Murder of Mary Gollop, a Bastard Child of Sarah his Wife, by another man, previous to her marriage, at the parish of Uffculme, in the said County.

Mary Gollop lived with her mother, the wife of Thomas Bowerman, in Bowerman’s house, at Uffculme, and had been often noticed on account of the ill treatment she was known to experience from Thomas Bowerman. About Michaelmas, 1797, being then about fourteen years of age, she was reported to have died suddenly in her father’s house, and she was accordingly buried on the first day of October, 1797, in the church-yard of Uffculme.

In January, 1800, Thomas Bowerman was committed to the Devon Bridewell, at the suit of the overseers of the poor of Uffculme, on a conviction for having ran away and left his children chargeable to the parish of Uffculme. His wife was at that time dead, and Elizabeth, one of his children, about twelve years old, had been removed to the parish workhouse, and was there maintained at the expense of the parish. Elizabeth Stark, the mistress of the workhouse, in a conversation with Elizabeth Bowerman, mentioned to her, that on her father’s return from Bridewell, after the expiration of his sentence, she would be sent to her father’s house to be by him maintained and clothed. Elizabeth Bowerman burst into tears, saying she could never again live with her father if he did return, as she was afraid he would murder her as he did her sister. She then stated that her father killed her sister, Mary Gollop, by pushing an awl into her head. She saw him do it, and he made her mother and herself wipe up the blood, and said he would serve her the same if ever she told of it.

Mrs. Stark remonstrated with Elizabeth Bowerman on the incredibility of her story; but in spite of all admonition, she persisted in asserting the truth of her statements, repeated without variance the particulars of the case, and pointed out the part near the ear where the perforation had been made. On the prevalence of this report, in the month of February, 1800, it was judged expedient by the parishioners to consult the Coroner, who ordered the disinterment of the body of Mary Gollop, and held an inquest, by whom the skull was inspected, on which was found a small hole of the size of an awl on the side of the head near the ear, in the place that Elizabeth Bowerman had pointed out.

The Jury thereupon returned against Thomas Bowerman a verdict of Wilful Murder.