641 



SKELETON. 



regions of the ophidian are thoracic, and there- 

 fore in this skeleton there does not appear a 

 cervical spine, or a lumbar spine, properly so 

 called. If the above observations, respecting 

 the several spinal regions, and the several appa- 

 ratus thereunto appended, be true, then, how- 

 ever harshly it may seem to jar against reason, 

 in asserting that there must exist the same 

 analogy between a hyoid, a thoracic, and a 

 ventral apparatus, as between the cervical, the 

 dorsal, and the lumbar vertebrae, still I do 

 not hesitate to make that assertion, under the 

 knowledge that the original whole quantities 

 of each region are of thoracic costo-vertebral 

 proportions. I do not mean to say that the 

 apparatus of the vocal throat (a b of Jig. 455.), 

 or the respiratory thorax (8 to 19 of fig. 455.), 

 and the digestive venter (1 to 8 of/#.464.), are 

 identical as osseous quantities, having the 

 same number of elemental pieces in each 

 which we find in one, but what I distinctly 

 repeat is this, namely, that, however broad 

 may be the specific distinctions between the 

 presential characters of a hyoid, a thoracic, 

 and a ventral apparatus, when compared and 

 contrasted with each other, still the law of 

 serial arrangement will, if followed in the one 

 skeletal form, and throughout the whole ani- 

 mal kingdom, prove that they are variable 

 proportional osseous quantities of the same 

 original, viz., the thoracic costo-vertebral con- 

 tinuous series of archetypes : and, therefore, 

 I have united with dotted lines the hyoid 

 apparatus to the cervical vertebrae, and the 

 ventral apparatus to the lumbar vertebrae. 



PROP. XXXIV. Clavicles, coracoid bones, 

 and ribs are identical parts of the costo-vertebral 

 whole quantities or archetypes. It is impossible 

 to tell which of the two bones named clavicle 

 and coracoid, in a bird, is the counterpart or 

 homologue of the bone named clavicle in man. 

 Anatomists are not agreed upon this point at 

 the present time ; and, I may venture to say, 

 they never will be, for this reason, viz., that they 

 believe these bones to be specifically diverse 

 bodies, and holding a permanently fixed cha- 

 racter in all animals, when, in fact, they ere 

 identical bodies, being severally subjected to 

 the same modification in two or more skele- 

 tons. Whichever of these two bones (and it 

 may be either one or the other) is made to 

 assume the functions and connection proper 

 to the thing called clavicle in the human ske- 

 leton, will be the clavicle. It is the distin- 

 guishing mark of the human clavicle (a b,fig. 

 465.), to abut by one end against the sternal 

 piece (c), and by the other end () against 

 the acromion process of the scapula ; but, 

 strange to say, we find that both these con- 

 nections proper to the clavicle of the mammal 

 are divided between the two bones named 

 clavicle and coracoid in the bird. The bone 

 named coracoid (d,fig. 466.) in the bird joins 

 the sternum (/), like the bone named clavicle 

 in the mammal ; but it is the bone named 

 clavicle (a fig. 466.) in the bird which joins the 

 acromion process (b) like the bone named 

 clavicle in the mammal. For this reason, I say, 

 that it is not possible to pronounce what bone 



in the bird is counterpart of the clavicle in the 

 mammal, since, evidently, those very articular 



Fig. 465. 



connections which characterise the one bone, 

 called clavicle in the mammal body, are divided 



Fig. 466. 



between two bones at the same locality in the 

 bird. It is this circumstance which has given 

 rise to so much written controversy* in the 

 school of comparative anatomy. 



I find that the mammal clavicle (b fig. 465.) 

 joins the first sternal piece (c) by one end 



* In the writings of Cuvier, Geoffroy, Cams, 

 Meckel, and others, I find the following statement 

 respecting the identity of the bones called clavicles 

 and coracoids. By one, the furcular bone, at the 

 root of the bird's neck, is accounted the true ana- 

 logue of the mammal clavicle. By another, this 

 " coracoid " bone, which is behind the furcular, and 

 articulates with the sternum, is called the analogue 

 of the mammal clavicle. By another, this coracoid 

 bone is said to represent the coracoid process of the 

 human scapula. By another, the two bones, furcu- 

 lar and coracoid, are said to be clavicles proper. 

 One states that the corresponding bone, which 

 occurs at the root of the chelonian cervix, is a cora- 

 coid bone ; another avers that it is the counterpart 

 of the clavicle ; another that it may represent either. 

 In the tortoise, the bone is clavicle according to 

 one ; coracoid, according to another. In the casso- 

 wary and ostrich, where one of the two bones is 

 rudimentary, a doubt arises as to whether this be 

 the coracoid or the clavicle ; some prove one read- 

 ing on the bat, some another on the monotreme, 

 some another on the lizard, others prove their own 

 interpretation on the fish ; and Nitsch discovers (?) 

 a small additional rudimentary scapula in the cap- 

 sular ligament of the shoulder of some accipitres, 

 which he says is proper to the furcular bone, and 

 therefore the furcular bone is a clavicle. I leave 

 the reader to choose his own belief out of these, if it 

 be possible with him. 



