126 American Quarterly Microscopical Journal. 



It is evidently necessary in both human and comparative 

 anatomy to be able to designate the two pancreatic ducts, so 

 that there can be no doubt as to w^hich is meant in a given 

 case. There would be no danger of confusion, if in all species 

 and all individuals of the same species, the relative size 

 and position of the ducts were invariable; but this is not the 

 case, for in man (Plate XII., Fig. III.,) the duct opening separ- 

 ately into the intestine is normally nearer the pylorus than the 

 one opening in common with the ductus choledochus, while in 

 all other mammals, where two ducts are known, neither opens 

 nearer the pylorus than the ductus choledochus. It should be 

 stated, however, that both Owen (23, 497) and Salter (27, 85), 

 figure and describe the independent second duct in man as 

 opening into the duodenum " below," farther from the pylorus 

 than the one opening in common with the ductus choledo- 

 chus, as is the case in the lower mammals, although it may 

 rarely open nearer the pylorus. But Santorini (28), Bernard 

 (i, 384), and Robin (18, 1137), figure the ducts, and state very 

 positively that the one opening independently is always nearer 

 the pylorus (" au-dessus, mais non au-dessous ") than the one 

 opening with the ductus choledochus. Flint (10, 331) and Dun- 

 glison (8, 750) give the relative positions as the authors last 

 mentioned.* 



In nearly all the works which may be considered original 

 (i, 3, 5, 22, 23, 25, 27, etc.), the ducts, in man and other mam- 

 mals, have been called *' principal " and '' accessory." As in 

 many instances, where parts of the human body have been 

 named with reference to their size alone, so in this, compara- 

 tive anatomy has shown that the lesser, while keeping the 

 same relative position, often becomes the greater, and the 



*Note by Professor Wilder. " I gladly avail myself of Mr. Gage's invitation to add a note at this 

 point. How is it that the hundreds of human subjects annually dissected in our medical schools 

 yield so few facts of physiological importance ? Why, for example, has not the present question 

 as to the normal number and relative position of the pancreatic ducts of man been settled long 

 ago? 



Three reasons occur to me : i. The general attraction among medical students is toward sur- 

 gery rather than medicine ; hence, they pay more attention to surgical anatomy than to physiologi- 

 cal anatomy. 2. The viscera of human subjects are rarely in condition, when removed, to furnish 

 accurate information, and are usually thrown away after a brief inspection. 3. The average medi- 

 cal student is rarely qualified for the proper examination of viscera. If he has had any pre- 

 liminary training at all, it has referred chiefly to bones and muscles. 



Now, if the viscera were removed at an earlier stage of the dissection, such parts as the duode- 

 num might easily be preserved in alcohol, for careful study. In the second place, the viscera of the 

 cat are so nearly like those of man that there is really no reason why they should not first be ex- 

 amined as to both the gross anatomy and the histology of the various organs.'' 



