Bigfoot Encounters

The Sasquatch and the Baculum
correcting errors that have arisen from public statements...

© Bobbie Short …

The baculum is a bone that facilitates an erection without blood: synonym = penis bone or os penis is a bone of varying sizes and shapes located in the glans penis or pelvic region of all primates EXCEPT man.  

The animal penis has a very simple job to do: to maintain sufficient stiffness to facilitate entry into an orifice during mating and to deliver sperm; the UT or genitourinary system function notwithstanding... that's it. Mammals achieve this in a unique manner.

Most animals, including primates have a unique retractable bone called a baculum in their penis. The only primate without this baculum are human men; animals without a baculum are horses, mules, rhinos, marsupials, rabbits and elephants to name a few... 

The penis bone is kept in the abdomen and when needed, a set of muscles are designed to flex, pushing it into a sheath in the fleshy part of the penis to facilitate copulation. Most people are completely unaware of this function in animals.

To correct some errors spoken on
The guest, a professor of anatomy, is quoted as saying, "*None of the living great apes have a baculum..." on Friday February 19, 2010, - 75 minutes: 23 seconds into that broadcast. Continuing on the professor said, "*Most of the higher primates, monkeys and apes lack a baculum."  These statements are not scientifically correct.

All the great apes, in fact all simians have a baculum...human men do not; men are the only 2-legged primates that have this distinction. This little known fact plays an intregal role in what separates man from the great apes. The other mammals without a baculum are all 4-legged.

To reiterate, - ALL THE GREAT APES have this penis bone… or baculum. All apes, all monkeys, all primates EXCEPT human males.
Moreover, even the shapes of the penis are distinctly different.

The question arises, why is this seemingly sensitive issue being discussed? What is the point? Well again, the answer is simple…

‘If' the sasquatch life form is an ape as some men maintain simply because of the Intermembral index (IM) measurement of a single arm length; (Patty), then it would be reasonable to suggest they too must have this penis bone to facilitate copulation because all the great apes & simians have a baculum. It is a fact that is not widely discussed, but it should be...

The ape theorists and some arm-chair researchers have been staunch advocates that this intermembral index sufficiently marks their case in the favorable column…well not so fast! 

The intermembral index (IM) they refer to was based on only one sasquatch individual with what the opposition perceives are disproportionately long arms; yes Patty the subject in the Patterson film. What has been proposed is hardly a comparative study of sasquatch arm lengths! That point may have served well to eliminate Bob Heironimus from the 'suit theory' but some followers have been misled; they believe this is a study of all sasquatch arm lengths; it isn't.

I believe it would be helpful if people in research with advantageous positions weighed more carefully the claims and the pronouncements they make on public venues. 

Conversely and more importantly: ‘if' the sasquatch is NOT more favorably branched in the ape sector and… ‘if' DNA provides evidence they are more human-like as the growing trend in research tends to propose; then we can hypothesize that sasquatch does not possess a baculum and the Bigfoot, like human men rely on blood engorgement to facilitate intercourse.  Man is the only two-legged primate with that distinction. The remaining mammals without a baculum are 4-legged. 

I was greatly surprised when the Friday night BTR guest speaker asked why the subject of a baculum was brought up as if to embarrass the gentleman questioner on the phone.

Again, the answer is simple: as with other sasquatch characteristics, the lack of a baculum is
a very strong indicator that Bigfoot isn't an ape. At least it is as strong an argument as the opposition's case that the IM arm measurement, based on one individual, makes Bigfoot less human.

As far as I am concerned, “What requires a line of demarcation between the great apes and man also works for the great apes and the sasquatch people;” other anatomical differences notwithstanding.  

The root cause for this discussion was not to embarrass, but it prompted a spirited debate on a critical thinker's list; the origins of this discussion began not with me or the discussion list, but several months back with a Texas biologist in his soon-to-be-released paper on the sasquatch.  

Moving on, what of the female sasquatch genitalia? Because hers is internally designed, we can only assume that if the Sasquatch male is built with the same external anatomy as the human male for elongated vaginal presentation during copulation, then it would logically follow that the sasquatch female is mapped reasonable the same as I am, but believably hers would be on a larger scale if we consider the size of the pelvic cradle seen in the Patterson film. True aspects of her reproductive anatomy are unknown. However the homologue or identical feature to the baculum in female mammals is known as the baubellum or os clitoris.

There were other arguments under consideration tossed about on that list that would seemingly separate the sasquatch from the great apes, namely the mid tarsal break, once again seemingly based on one track, that being the Laverty track and a more vociferously debated discussion over the presence of the hyoid bone and its function re: language. Diane Stocking will tackle the hyoid bone issues in the April issue of the bigfoot newsletter - for this work this cogent repartee stands.

© Bobbie Short March 2010
- ---
Please keep your comments civil, no ad hominem attacks....

"I think your intent was to embarrass Dr. Meldrum, you could have just written Jeff privately... " Los Angeles, CA.
How would that resolve a public misspeak? Yes, I could have but his gaffe was spawned on a national talk show and done so with a semblance of authoritative writ.  Someone should set the record straight. I waited a week where Jeff took no initiative. There exists much misinformation dancing about in this research that shouldn't be, especially from a professor of anatomy.  Please note that I did Dr. Meldrum the professional courtesy of not naming him in this missive. Moreover, there were less than 25 people in chat when Meldrum misspoke; half of them didn't know what a baculum was or the importance of the lesson. They do now. I did not make this a contest, ..Dr. Meldrum did that himself when he went, in response, to a tabloid journalist on Cryptomundo; a second mistake in my view from one who feigns scientific professionalism. The drama was created there, not here.    ….Bobbie Short

" Interesting discussion on whether a male Sasquatch has a baculum. For those of you who have never spent sleepless nights pondering this mystery, the genus homo is the only one of the primates which lacks a baculum. Male chimpanzees, our closest relatives, do have a baculum. [] Of course this question could be easily be answered if we could just find a carcass.",530552 Allan Shumaker

"If the Sasquatch has a penis bone, it would follow that the shape of his penis would be designed differently than man."  Chandler, Arizona

"Our experience has been from preliminary assessments that the North American hominid in all probability does not have a baculum." Oxford, UK

"It was with some discomfort and squirming that I read your latest page."  Norman, Oklahoma

"Bobbie, here is another thought-provoking page, The Os Penis Mystery - Did Man Really Evolve From Ape?
    Ohio State U (link has been corrected, sorry...)

"A giant faux pas becomes a national debate." Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Dept of Fisheries and Oceans

"Does BF have a penis bone? - My answer: Definitely not. Man, Bigfoot, and all other bipedal primates do not have os penis because of their upright bodies, in which there is no room for a sizable, i.e., useful, baculum."  Moscow, Russia

"Texas toothpicks" -the raccoon penis bone. Who knew?   Baylor University

"If Meldrum can speculate about foot structure for years and never prove his point or give a reason why nature would design a foot that way - - that IS SPECULATION. Thanks for this exchange, it is worthy of notice in this field. You go girl, blacken his other eye!!!  Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

"This is the same professor of anatomy that went bigfoot hunting at Snelgrove Lake, Canada and ran inside the cabin when bigfoot threw rocks at him and the production crew, our hero!" Minnesota

"...interesting points and it seems...another that would have been neatly relegated to the closet had you not caught the blunder or as he says, 'misspeak.' He says some apes have no baculum, yeah, females and impotent males; he doesn't know how to say 'sorry, I mucked up."  Ohio

" bones about it, the description requires deeper thought within the genus Homo." Nihongo, Japan

"..I can hear the brains whirling in class on Monday."  SFA University, Nacogdoches,Texas

My God. It is late afternoon here in the south, I'm sitting at my desk glaring off into space, wondering if we can no longer call them animals? The article and the comments gave me time for reflection, you provoke deep thought." LSU

"The commentor is correct, to clarify, Krantz did not write about the baculum." Pullman, Washington

"Sounds like the prof of anatomy FUBAR'd" Big Roo dot com, Australia

"We are amazed that this issue wasn't touched on by Dr. Grover S. Krantz's book, 'Big Footprints." SLC, Utah

"Even primatologist Estaban Sarmiento doesn't think they are apes, There is a great need for changes in how we think of the Sasquatch." Texas

One thing very relevant here is when this bone was lost in the course of human evolution. While our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, retains it, it is already rudimentary or vestigial, being about 3/4 inch long, and I don't know how functional it is in chimp erections - the chimpanzee has a fairly long but slender penis. The problem with fossil hominid remains is they're so fragmentary, and it's unlikely such a small and fragile bone would be preserved. So was the bone lost already with the australopithecines? Did some early Homo like H. habilis retain it? Or is H. sapiens unique in this respect? My guess is it was lost about the time bipedalism evolved, and the male genitals became more conspicuous, but we may never know. So, if BF does not have a baculum, this would not alone prove BF was H. sapiens - conversely, if it did, I guess would not necessarily prove it was an ape. I still feel that based on all the evidence we have at this point, BF is neither Homo sapiens nor an "ape" but something unique.

“I agree with the Louisiana comment poster, Meldrum was wrong about the Memorial Day Footage, he was wrong about the Skookum cast, ask Dr's Fish, Fahrenbach and Wroblewski;  he was wrong about Penn & Teller's Sonoma footage, he is wrong about the mid tarsal break issue ask any
orthopedic surgeon and he screwed up the baculum issue or he never thought about it in the first place to which we are sure he would never admit.” New York City, NY

“Not only the bone in the penis the baculum, but also the shape of the penis is different in the apes and monkeys compared to distinct way of identification for us hunters between ape and human would be the SHAPE of the penis...something we have all known for years but would not discuss out side of our group.  Meldrum, IMO, is an educated idiot that refuses to accept his errors...he doesn't know a damn thing about Sasquatch other than what he was told or read...he takes the Laverty track and because of his education and this communities ignorance we now have a mid tarsal break...stay on his ass like a tick on a cur dog Bobbie...he thinks he is beyond approach or correction.  BTW...IMO, the strictly bipedal Sasquatch has no need or would have a mid tarsal break...a quadruped/biped would...while tracking I have seen what I always called a hinge, -.long before I heard of Meldrum...but that is entirely another debate...”

"....thought provoking." Berkeley, California

"The point of your article is strong evidence that the Sasquatch are NOT apes, if it can be determined, it is a distinction reserved for man alone and isn't that exactly what the Native Americans have been telling us all along? I find it interesting that preliminary DNA discussions are swept under the rug along with all the other 'human aspects' of the Sasquatch. I am however, not yet willing to concede they are as human as we." Ohio State University

"Bobbie, I like the article about the baculum, it is a very important part of the anatomy that could push the bigfoot toward the human side. As the person from Oregon said, Bulls will break this bone every once in a while. As a working cowboy for 30 years I have seen this happen several times and it always happened to the most expensive bull you had. This is an excellent, thought provoking article, leave it up to you to bring this up. You do great work, keep it up, I support you whole heartedly" Madison NE.

"Strong evidence indeed, especially if this is the case with the absence of a baculum in the sasquatch and also what may prove to be true regarding the intermembral index. I take it you lean towards the 'human element?" The oral history of our Native American people suggests the squatch are human, they say 'people of a different tribe,' don't they? It is increasingly difficult to call them animals." (Texas A&M)

" I posted a link on our site to your article on Baculum, nice job!" (Los Gatos, California)

"Your article was truly thought provoking and well done. As an aside, it is not a joking matter in the cattle industry when you have to sell a valuable bull for hamburger because he's an aggressive breeder and breaks his penis. Certain bulls are especially prone to breaking penis's. Yep. Straight goods."

"This was an excellent argument: The Sasquatch and the Baculum"

"Excellent article on baculum. It really pricked my curiosity" SF Bay Area. California

"...strong point, one most of us would never have thought of" (Marin City, California)

"Sasquatch and the Baculum" is an eye opening read. I've known of a few animals that have a baculum, but I had no idea all the great apes were thus equipped. What a great tool to have at our disposal. It's like the fact that all arachnids have eight legs."
(Duluth, Mn)

"You are a trained medical professional...there is no reason to be politically a spade a spade..." (Oklahoma)

".... I never heard of a baculum before, thanks for this..." (Walnut, California)

"....Greetings Ms. Short. Your article on the baculum (or lack of one) might be backed up with the First Nations stories about Sasquatches kidnapping female members and raping them. As you are no doubt aware, a number of these couplings had, according to a number of the stories, generated pregnancies. Not according to me, but according to the stories. Now I think more about pregnancies of First Nations women might be discussed in the David Paulides volume “Tribal Bigfoot” if memory serves. That indicates to me that Sasquatches are perhaps highly likely not pongids. Not even bipedal-special versions. It may indicate that the legend of Seehawtiks (excuse my spelling) Tribe may be closer to the mark. But that would bring up the issue as to why would a significant sector grouping of homo sapiens sapiens still sport mutations better suited to the Ice Age, of say 40,000 years ago. Large size (easier to keep warm biologically), and the super thick coat of hair. In another volume “Raincoast Sasquatch” there are stories of eyewitnesses seeing Sasquatches swimming, including swimming underneath the water (like we humans). No other ape known to science does that. This also argues for something much more akin to homo sapiens sapiens, albeit in a format not familiar to science. I would avoid attempting to link the existence of Sasquatch to the Patterson/Gimlin hoax film. I think, from my view, that that film has been laid to rest as bogus by a number of recent websites, including the James Randi discussion groupings, as well as publications, including the book “The Making of Bigfoot.” Sasquatch may exist, but the Patterson/Gimlin film is not of one. Even if the Patterson/Gimlin hoax film is not real, that doesn’t mean—as a result that the Patterson/Gimlin film being fake-- that Sasquatches don’t exist. I don’t subscribe to faith-based concepts in regards to issues linked to cryptozoology. If a person can prove something is a hoax, then fine. If a person can prove something is real (using the scientific concepts and scientific methodologies now extant), fine. At the minimum, better evidence needs to be found film-wise and photographically-wise." (Pennsylvania)
- ---
"Check box in the human side, erase mark in ape box.
" (Brookings, South Dakota)

"Leave it to you to find the finer points, Ms. Tell-it-like-it-is-of-2010, we leave it to you to square us away!"

"...excellent article....which opens an area of discussion we have not had regarding squatch sexuality amongst themselves and alleged sexual interaction with other species....
" (Broken Arrow, Oklahoma)

" we have the skunk ape who doesn't exist and now it has a penis bone, WTF?..." . (Cutler Bay, Florida)

"...who was the bonehead anatomist?" (Las Cruces, New Mexico)

" excellent point, Bobbie, best articles are when you become indignant or angered by something unjust..." (Ft. Sill, OK)

"...yeh didn't know the differences between apes & man, who knew?" (Langley, VA)
- ---

Helps & Resources

James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute - Dept of Urology at Johns Hopkins
John Morley, Texas
Dr. Richard Eisner, Massachusetts
Various at Department of Zoology, University of California at Davis...
Students at The School of Veterinary Medicine; University of California at Davis...

*BTR - MN.R.T.

Dixson, Alan F. "Primate sexuality: comparative studies of the prosimians, monkeys, apes and Human Beings"

"The Baculum" -
"Top Ten Penises from Largest to the oldest" -;wap2 
"The penis bone"
- ---

Back to Biology?
Back to Stories?
Back to Bigfoot Encounters Main page
Back to Newspaper & Magazine Articles
Back to Bigfoot Encounters "What's New" page

Portions of this website are reprinted and sometimes edited to fit the standards
of this website under the Fair Use Doctrine of International Copyright Law
as educational material without benefit of financial gain.
This proviso is applicable throughout the entire Bigfoot Encounters Website