Studies of long bones occasionally include the condylodiaphysial angle of the humerus (cubital angle, angle of divergence, trochlear angle), but often this measure is omitted. Although observers who have reported the condylodiaphysial angle of the humerus are often not very explicit as to just how the measurement was made, there is agreement in the main. The procedure detailed by Martin is usually followed. I n this the bone, posterior surface up, is placed upon a measuring board with condyles pressed against the vertical wall, and then, by means of a black thread attached with wax in such a way that the bone is divided into lateral halves, especially in the distal segment, the angle between the thread and wall is read off with a protractor. Lehmann-Nitsche employed two readings, one with the posterior surface of the humerus up, one with the anterior surface up, and then reported the average. No indication was given by Hultkrantz and Jazzetta as to the technique employed. Anthony and Rivet describe a method which gives no indication of how the long axis of the bone is determined and whether the distal portion alone or the whole shaft is used. It is in this particular