CHAPTER VIII 

 OSTEOLOGY 



Although in works on anatomy the osteological portion 

 usually precedes the myological, the opposite treatment is 

 herewith presented both for the reason that a detailed study 

 of the bones was not made until after the dissection of the 

 muscles had been completed, or virtually so, and because 

 with the osteological matter is offered much information 

 concerning the attachments of the muscles. Only such 

 description of the bones is herewith included as was deemed 

 necessary to the contribution. Information concerning the 

 individual bones of the skull is especially meager, but a 

 fuller discussion would entail much repetition of a paper al- 

 ready published by the author (Howell, 1924). 



As with the myological portion, the osteological data are 

 based upon skeletons of the species (Homodontomys) fuscipes, 

 (Neotoma) alhigula, and (Teonoma) cinerea. Skeletons of 

 (Neotoma) floridana rubida, (Neotoma) pennsylvanica, and 

 (Neotoma) lepida stephensi in a satisfactory state of articu- 

 lation, and less satisfactory (Neotoma) intermedia, and (N.) 

 desertorum, have also been studied, however, and when any 

 of these have proved to be more extreme in any particular 

 than the species fuscipes, alhigula, and cinerea, the fact is 

 mentioned. 



The purpose of this osteological portion is mainly to em- 

 phasize the effects which the development, and emplace- 

 ment, and attachments of the muscles, especially those of 

 the skull and the Limbs, have had upon the bones and their 

 processes. As the attachments of many of the muscles differ 

 in some respects from those in man and in the cat, so do the 

 processes and other indications of muscle attachment. The 



no 



