1213 
several points, even though, for the rest, the anatomic relations 
were such as he supposes them fo be. In fact, the last-named are 
decidedly more complicated. It seems to me that, on arguments to 
be brought up presently, we should really no longer consider the 
“fossa” Scarpae as a space enclosed by walls independent of its 
contents. There is, on the other hand, every reason to follow in 
OMBREDANNE's track, and assume it to be a connective tissue enclosed 
by muscles, carrying the vasa femoralia, besides the lymphatic 
vessels, and the lymphatic glands, of which connective tissue the 
superficial layers (i.e. those lying against the muscles) have been 
compressed into fascia lata, deep and superficial layer. In other 
words I am inclined to consider the fossa Scarpae, wall and con- 
tents taken together, as a “lame vasculaire” which has adapted its 
shape to the available space. 
Still, although I cannot endorse Fransen’s exposition, I think 
nonetheless that his pronouncement regarding the functional signi- 
ficance of the fascia lata for the bloodstream in the vena femoralis, 
is correct in so far as the fascia plays a part in keeping the vena 
open. But this, I believe, to be the consequence of the direct con- 
nection of the fascia lata with the connective tissue sheath of the 
vessels themselves. 
Now about the relations in Hunrer’s canal. Weil, it seems to me 
that they may readily be looked upon from the same point of view 
that we just now suggested for the fossa Scarpae. This could be 
realised beforehand since HuntEr’s canal is direetly continuous with 
the fossa Scarpae. FRANSEN points out, with reason, that HUNTER’s 
canal is invested by three aponeurotic fasciae. Well then, here also 
the vessels do not lie loose in that space, but wall and contents 
again form one whole. Here again, just as with the fossa Scarpae, 
the connective tissue layer bordering on the muscles, assumed the 
character of a fascia, in this case complicated because muscle-fibers 
attached themselves to this fascia and thus bestowed on it an apo- 
neurotic character. It follows then in my opinion that FRANSEN’s 
arcus tendineus is to be conceived as an aponeurotic fibre-bundle 
fascie, closely related to the vessels. 
As | alluded to above, the investigation which led me in the 
direction of OMBREDANNE'’s theory was of quite a different nature, so 
that in order to discuss this question I must call the reader’s 
attention to a totally different matter. I was induced to undertake 
my investigation by a question, put to me by Dr. La CHAPELLE, 
at the time assistant at the surgical clinic of Leyden. 
I will repeat the question here in its original form. The starting- 
