The simple response is that science was not the major purpose of these sketches. As discussed above, when one begins with a conclusion, and then manipulates data to support the conclusion, one has left the realm of science and embarked on an artistic endeavor. Far from encouraging verisimilitude in sketching, the leaders in the academy encouraged an aesthetic emphasis. William Cheselden, for example, used as his model of the female skeleton, “the same proportion as the Venus de Medici.” Soemmering, Albinus, and d’Arconville all used the Venus de Medici to adjust their sketches in order to comply with proportions in that work of art. Albinus in particular is instructive as a case study Albinus claimed as his intention the portrayal of an ideal and universal type, not a strictly accurate recreation. “I am of the opinion,” he shared, “that what Nature, the arch workman . . . has fashioned must be sifted with care and judgment, and that from the endless variety of Nature the best elements must be selected.” There is a way of looking at that in a forgiving way. It is not outside of the realm of science to be both accurate and conscious of the aesthetic value of the artistic depiction. If one must use an explanatory filter in the artistic process, why not allow beauty to be one’s control? Really there is nothing wrong with that, except that “beauty” is a subjective and relative term. There is no scientific answer to the age old question of what constitutes beauty. Thus the endeavor to use aesthetic pleasantness as the measure when deciding where to place emphases, and where not to, Albinus, and the other osteologists of the day, were really using gender norms as their measure. Wenzel again demonstrates this tendency when he admits that, “the great variation among individual men and women produces continuity between the sexes.”