A few words are here necessary in explanation of the system of nomen- 

 clature used throughout this work. Although reluctant to add to the 

 confusion already prevailing in the nomenclature of veterinary anatomy, 

 the author has not confomied to any of the systems in general use. 

 The system here employed is based on the principle of naming each 

 object after the homologous object in human anatomy. So far, indeed, 

 as any of the systems in use can be said to follow a principle, it is that 

 just stated ; but the violations of the principle are numerous, and, in 

 most cases, appear to have been dictated by the merest caprice. The 

 most vicious form of depai-ture from the principle is that in which terms 

 adopted from human anatomy are employed to designate not the actual 

 homologues, but other parts having, it may be, some fiiint resemblance 

 in shape or otherwise to the objects bearing these names in the human 

 subject. This method is indefensible, since it tends to produce the 

 greatest confusion, and, if generally adopted, would render a comparison 

 of the anatomy of any two animals an impossibility. Many such terms 

 have long been in use, but it is hoped that they are not ineradicable. 



In cases where objects appear to be without homologues in human 

 anatomy, new names must, of course, be found. In only a few of these 

 instances, however, has the author employed terms of his own invention, 

 preferring, in general, to adopt some of those already in use. 



The greatest diversity of names, it will be found, exists in the case of 

 muscles, and the following table of synonyms has been compiled for the 

 convenience of those already familiar with the terms employed in some 

 other works. 



