On the myology of the terrestrial carnivora. Pt. I. Muscles of the head, neck, and fore-limb / by B.C.A. Windle and F.G. Parsons.

  • Windle, Bertram C. A. (Bertram Coghill Alan), 1858-1929.
Date:
1897
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On the myology of the terrestrial carnivora. Pt. I. Muscles of the head, neck, and fore-limb / by B.C.A. Windle and F.G. Parsons. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    23/42 (page 391)
    latissimiis clorsi tendon and occasionally, as in the case of one specimen of Ursus americcmus (49), Viverriculci malaccensis (15), and Nasua (60), gives off the dorso-epitrochlearis. Teres minor.—This muscle is sometimes very closely fused with the infraspinatus, sometimes fairly distinct. We are not inclined to lay any stress on this condition, since it varies in different specimens of the same animal; moreover, that which to one observer would be fairly distinct might be indistinct to another. Meckel (XXXIX.) says that the teres minor is absent as a distinct muscle in most Carnivora. In the following animals the muscle is described as distinct:—Fells leo (1), F. caius (6), Cryptoprocta (10), Vivei'ra civetta (12, 13), Genetta (18), Hycena striata (26), Hycena crocuta (29), Canis familiar is (31, 39), I/ycaon pictus (44), Ursus maritimus (45), Frocyoii lotor (53), Galictis hurbara (64), Mustela putorius (65). In the following animals the teres minor was inseparable from the infraspinatus :—Proteles (25), Hycena striata (28), Ursus americanus (49), Frocyon lotor (54), Cercoleptes (61), Lutra vulgaris (74), and Lutra cinerea (78). To these must be added the animals on which Meckel founded his generalization and probably many of those in which no mention is made of the muscle. Biceps cuhiti.—In by far the greater number of Carnivora this is a single-headed muscle, the Ursidae, as will be seen, forming a marked exception. When only one head is mentioned it is the one from the top of the glenoid cavity which passes through the shoulder-joint. In the following animals the biceps had only one head i—Felis leo (1, la), F. tigris (3), F. catus (6, 7, 7a), F. caracal (8), Cyncelurus jubatus (9), Oryytoprccta (10, 11), Viverra civetta (12, 13), Genetta (16, 16a, 17, 18), Paracloxxirus (19,21), Herpestes (24), Proteles (25), Hycena striata (26, 28), Hycenq, crocuta (29), Canis familiaris (31, 34, 35, 36, 37) (see fig. 8, p. 390), Cams aureus (42), Lycaon pictus (44), Canis vulpes (42), Ursus americanus (50), U. arctos (47) (on left side), Procyon lotor (54, 55), P. cancri- vorus (57), Hasua (58, 59, 60, XXXIX.), Galictis vittata (63), Mustela putorius (65), M. foina (66), Ictonyx (69, 70), Mdes taxus (71, ( 2, i^), Lutra vulgaris (/4, /6), L, cinerea (78). In describinc the biceps of the Civet both Macalister (IX.) and Young (VIII.') speak of the single head as rising from the coracoid process. We found the same arrangement in Herpestes (24), but were convinced t^hat this head corresponds not to the short but to the long one of human anatomy; our chief reason for this is that it passes through the shoulder-capsule and bicipital groove. In the following animals a second head was found rising from the coracoid process with the coraco-brachialis : Paradoxurus (20) Ursus marihmus (45, 46), Ursus arctos (47) (on right side), Ursus (53) (very feebly marked), Ceicoleptes (61, 62). The insertion is, in moat cases, into the radius only, though in the Hymuidoe it is described as going to the Whf j insertion into fascia, though bhepherd describes a strong bicipital fascia in [23]