The skeleton in the flying lemurs, Galeopteridae / by R.W. Shufeldt.

  • Robert Wilson Shufeldt
Date:
1911
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The skeleton in the flying lemurs, Galeopteridae / by R.W. Shufeldt. 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.

    48/72 (page 196)
    TllK SKEI>ETON OK THE PELVIC UMll. Proportionately, the pelvic limb of Cipiocepluthis is not a.s powerfully developed as is the pectoral limb, though there seem to l>e exceptions to this general rule. In Steere’s specimen, for example, the long bones of tlie posterior limbs are fully as well develo])ed as are tlie corresponding ones in the anterior extremities. However, ])es always seems to be weaker and .somewhat smaller than manns, and this is also evidenced in the skeleton of these parts. In the matter of proportions there are very j)iarked differences in the pelvic limbs of the three skeletons at hand. These differences may be due to the fact that they came from different species, or if from the same species, it may be due to differences in age of even sex. In any event the Steere specimen was a nuicli l)igger animal than either of the lUcGregor specimens, and one of the latter (3) is larger than fho other (2), though the characters tbroughont agree. 'Two of the femora, selected as exmiiples, show bow mai’ked these differences are; for instance, the right femnr of the Steere .skeleton has an extreme length of Ph3 centimeters, as compared with the extreme length of the femur in the smaller of the two individuals from the Bureau of Science, which is oidy 11.1 centimeters, 'riieii in the matter of actual si/.(> the two bones are also in ])roportion to this difference in Icmgth, the shaft of the femur in the first case being fully one-third larger than in the second case. The description of the pelvic limb here given is from the right side of the skeleton in Steere’s s])ecimen, with occasional reference to the other two individuals. 'I'he femur (Plate II, figure (i), possesses a stout, straight, cylindidcal shaft, which is .so smooth that even linea aspera is scarcely indicated upon it. d’he proximal extremity of the bone presents an elegant, smooth, heTnis])herical head, in fact so globular is it that it approaches the sphere, d’his head is marked by no pit for the ligainentum teres; its boundary is sharply defined in front ; less so bebind, where the articular surface encroaches slightly ii])on the summit of the shaft of the bone. The axis of the head and neck makes an obtuse angle with the axis of the shaft, thus bringing the head above the latter’s summit. Conspicuous and rough, the great trochanter curves slightly to the front, thus making the neck of the bone very distinct behind it and the caput femuris. Minute nutrient foramina may occur in this locality. On the postero-external aspect of the great trochanter there is a well-marked pit, the so-called trochanteric fossa, within M’hich certain muscles are inserted. Situated inteimally and at the same time postei’iorly, and about 1 centi- meter below the head, there arises the lesser trochanter, sometimes called the tibial trochanter. It is bluntly triangular in form, and arises from a substantial base. On the opposite side of the shaft, that is, on its