The epiploic appendages of the colon have long been an anatomical curiosity. In 1863, Virchow (1) first described the formation of foreign bodies in the abdomen from these calcified appendages. In 1924, Klingenstein (2) noted that 12 cases of such foreign bodies had been described in the literature. Rankin, Bargen, and Buie (3) devote an entire chapter in their text-book to diseases of the epiploic appendages. Occasionally torsion or embolism of one of these structures produces a surgical emergency. In 1933, Patterson (4) reviewed the literature and discussed the derivation of calcified appendiceal foreign bodies. Following any interference with blood supply, the fat of the appendage is saponified and subsequently calcified, and the whole structure separates from its attachment to lie free in the abdomen. The contemporary radiologic literature contains no reference to these fortuitous foreign bodies. Recently, two patients with these calcifications were seen within two months, indicating that the condition may be more common than recognized. At the time of operation for carcinoma of the rectum, one of these patients had a free calcified foreign body in the pelvis. This had not been demonstrated on the films made after a barium enema. The second patient illustrates that these calcifications are not only radiologic curiosities, but can influence the differential diagnosis. Case Report A. P., white male, aged 20 years, was admitted complaining of severe abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting of a few hours' duration. Physical examination showed local tenderness in the right lower quadrant, slight fever and leukocytosis. There was no muscle spasm. The picture was somewhat complicated by the finding of right costo-vertebral tenderness and pus in the catheterized specimen of urine. A flat film of the abdomen (Fig. 1) showed two oval calcifications in the right side of the pelvis near the line of the ureter. These did not have the usual characteristics of ureteral calculi. The patient's acute symptoms subsided and he received expectant treatment for several days. A lateral view of the pelvis (Fig. 2) showed the two calcifications, previously descnbed, to be well posterior. It was then thought they were in the rectum. They could not be felt by the palpating finger or dislodged by enemas. Cystoscopic examination revealed a normal b.ladder with some pus coming from the nght ureter. Roentgenograms made with the ureteral catheters in place (Fig. 3) showed the two calcifications now widely separated in the pelvis. They were not in the bladder or ureters Five days after admission laparotomy was performed and a subacute, retrocecal appendix was removed. At the same time two oval calcified foreign bodies were found, free in the pelvis. These corresponded to the shadows on the roentgenograms.