Awr.VA AXATOMY OP CHINESE FINLESS PORPOISE HOWELL, 33 



The complexus is smaller and lies directly deep to the biventer 

 oervicis. Origin is from the cranial border of the transverse pro- 

 cesses of several of the more cranial of the thoracic vertebrae. There 

 is also slight attachment by fasciculi to the transverse process of the 

 atlas. At the insertional end the muscle is very thin but the area 

 of attachment is broad and fascial upon the wide area of the supra- 

 and exoccipitals beneath the biventer. 



A muscle which seems to correspond with the semis pmalis cervicis 

 has origin apparently from the bases of the spines of the first two 

 thoracic and the seventh cervical vertebrae, with insertion upon the 

 caudo-dorsal process of the atlas. 



From the last-mentioned situation, with fibers interdigitating to 

 some extent with those of the semispinalis cervicis, there originates a 

 rectus capitis, which was indivisible in the present specimens. It is 

 the deepest muscle inserting upon the supraoccipital. 



The description of the long dorsal system of Kogia is extremely 

 intricate and involved, indicating dissection of a high degree of 

 excellence, but not easy to follow without repeating the work. Sub- 

 stantially, the thoracic and lumbo-dorsal portions seem to be very 

 similar to Neomeris save that there is an iliocostnlis thoracis distin- 

 guishable as a separate division, and Schulte does not mention any 

 partially divisible, thin, medial sheet upon the dorsum such as occurs 

 in Neomeris. The cervical muscles of Kofjia are somewhat differ- 

 ently arranged than those of Neomeris. The former seem, on the 

 whole, to be more complicated and specialized, as well as stronger, 

 but this may be due to the condition of the porpoise specimens. For 

 the same reason it is unwise to attempt too precise a homologization 

 of the cervical muscles of these two, because of inability to investi- 

 gate origins of the muscles in greater detail. 



The description of this complex in Balaenoptera is much easier 

 to follow. On the whole, it is not dissimilar to Neomeris. The 

 longissimus, including the capitis portion which Schulte here terms 

 trachelomastoid, is essentially the same. He found the semispinalis 

 capitis to be very much larger, but did not mention its divisibility, 

 save for the deep connection of fasciculi with the underlying muscles. 

 He did, however, find that there was a greater number of deeper 

 cervical muscles than are possessed by Neomeris. 



Murie shows a distinct iliocostalis lumborum in Glohiocephala, but 

 not a more cranial iliocostal, while both his figures and meager 

 descriptions of the cervical muscles are rather ambiguous. The same 

 applies to Stannius's description of Phocaena. 



There has been lengthy discussion of the long, dorsal musculature 

 of the Cetacea by almost everyone who has mentioned the subject, 

 many attempting to subdivide and homologize th3 muscular details 



