It is assuredly true, as Arndt (3) argues, that the possibility of a more detailed study of the morphology and the morphogenesis of a monster may throw light upon the general problem of teratology as well as the historical stages and the mechanics of development, and hence every case is important. That we need more detailed descriptions of the various kinds of monster is well illustrated by Miss Bing's (6) paper, which gives the details of a dicephalous girl which had been stored for many generations. Williams and Rausch's( 21) article illustrates the same thing concerning more recent specimens. A study of the literature cited by recent papers, Carey(7) and Arndt(3), shows that but few of the very numerous descriptions, particularly the older ones, give enough of the details t o make any comparative study possible. The work of Alexander (2) on the Synoti and of Bishop (6) on the Dicephali shows that they could use the descriptions of only a few of the related monsters reported by others to check their own results or establish the series of types they were investigating. It may be that a part of the difficulty lies in the fact that very many of the cases are reported in records of foreign local societies, and hence not available, but the few consulted did not give sufficient details for comparative study, being limited mostly to surface and skeletal anatomy. Because of the need of more details of individual monsters, this report is submitted.