Two perspectives
The report places Miles’s paleontological interpretation alongside Fung’s independent analysis as a retired diagnostic radiologist.
Nazca reptilian-like tridactyls · J-type
Reappraisal of The Miles Paper
Sources and scope
Dr. K. H. Fung’s October 2026 report compares his CT observations with the anatomy described in Part I of The Miles Paper (2022). The complete report is available below in English and Spanish, including every comparison table and original CT illustration.
The author’s assessment
Many anatomical observations agree; several interpretations differ.
Fung reports extensive agreement with Miles on the J-type specimens, while identifying differences in skull-bone nomenclature, the shape of the foramen magnum and ring-like skull markings.
01
Study scope and approach
CT material
Fung reviewed DICOM CT datasets for Josefina, Luisa, Alberto and Victoria. The anatomical comparisons here draw on the complete specimens Josefina, Luisa and Alberto.
Focus of the reappraisal
The comparison addresses Part I of the 2022 paper and its anatomical descriptions. Fung calls for open datasets, independent verification and collaboration across disciplines.
02
Areas of general agreement
An upright bipedal body plan with three fingers and three toes, scale-like skin, and long bones with dense cortex, trabeculae and marrow.
An elongated skull with large forward-facing orbits, small hinged mouth plates, no teeth and no separate mandible.
A single forearm bone and a single lower-leg bone, with unusual joint surfaces and differences among individual specimens.
Gastralia, short horizontal ribs, unconventional vertebral structures and an incomplete pelvic ring.
Hyperdense oval structures interpreted as eggs, with internal content that Fung considers suggestive of developing embryos.
Metallic implants at the chest in Josefina and Luisa, and a smaller implant at Alberto’s injured right hip.
03
Three major discrepancies
| Issue | Dr. Miles | Dr. Fung |
|---|---|---|
| Foramen magnum | Dr. MilesSquare, observed externally in loose skulls. | Dr. FungOval, observed internally in complete specimens. The report notes the different views and material. |
| Skull bones and sutures | Dr. MilesUses a prefrontal-bone interpretation. | Dr. FungUses anterior and posterior parietal bones with an accessory parietal suture. Figure 32 maps the two interpretations. |
| Ring-like skull markings | Dr. MilesInterprets concentric lines as growth lines. | Dr. FungInterprets the lines as CT stepping artefacts, more evident in reconstructions from thicker slices. |
04
Selected CT illustrations
Figures 1, 10, 15 and 32 from the October 2026 report. Open any image for a closer view.
05
Read the complete report
Download the complete October 2026 report in English or Spanish, including all comparison tables and CT illustrations.
Open the PDF in a new tab ↗