NO. 1 THE HYPOTROCHANTERIC FOSSA IIRDLICKA 5 



original data. Ludevvig," who failed to lind it on the femora of his own 

 preparations, uses the term " suhtrochanteric " for hypotrochariteric, 

 which for the sake of euphony would seem preferable. 



In 1893 Rudolf Martin " reported the presence of the hypotro- 

 chanteric fossa in all his five Alakalauf (Fuegian) femora and ex- 

 presses, doubtless after Houze, the opinion that the hollow stands 

 in a causative relation to the lateral protrusion and the flattening of 

 the upper part of the shaft. 



In 1894 appeared a noteworthy study of the femur by Evangeli- 

 Tramond." He reported finding the hypotrochanteric fossa " in nearly 

 all the neolithic femora of the Crois des Cosaques, Nanteuil-le-Harduin 

 and Copierres-sur-Ept ". He was the first to report the feature accord- 

 ing to its grades. In 120 modern French bones of known sex it was 

 represented thus : 



60 male 60 female 



femora, femora, 



percent percent 



Fossa: very plain (2) 3.3 (i) 1.7 



fairly plain (6) 10.- (7) ii-7 



trace (21) 35-- (14)23.3 



All (29) 48.3 (22) 36.7 



Evangeli-Tramond was also the first to observe that the fossa " is 

 better defined in femora, the epiphyses of which are formed but not 

 yet attached, than in those of adults ". This statement was quoted in 

 subsequent editions of Testut's " Traite d'Anatomie " and was noticed 

 also by Klaatsch (q, v.), but undeservedly has received no further 

 attention. The original observation on this point reads thus (pp. 

 55-56) : 



To the present we have noted the existence of the hypotrochanteric fossa in 

 only the femora of the adults. However, since our examination of the pre- 

 historic femora we have been struck by the fact that the fossa appeared more 

 or less clearly according to the age of the subjects. Sufficiently well marked 

 and relatively frequent on young femora with their epiphyses still cartilaginous, 

 it became the more accentuated the nearer the bones approached the age of 

 adolescence, when the epiphyses were already formed but not yet attached, while 

 it became scarcer and above all less well defined in aged femora. 



This evolution appeared interesting to me and I wished to compare it with 

 that of modern femora. Having at my disposition a large number of skeletons 



logiques du corps du femur dans I'espece humaine. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 

 vol. 4, pp. 111-114, 1893. 



" Ludewig, W., Monographic des menschlichen Oberschenkelbeins. Inaug.- 

 Diss., pp. 17, 18. Berlin, 1893. 



" Martin, R., Zur physischen Anthropologic der Feuerlander. Arch. Anthrop., 

 vol. 22, p. 195, 1894. 



^' Evangeli-Tramond, A., Quelques particularites sur le femur. Paris, 1894. 



