GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE STRIPED MUSCLES. 177 



Bourgelat applied this nomenclature to the horse, but modified it in many- 

 points. 



Chaussier, struck by the imperfections of the nomenclature introduced 

 into science by Sylvius, sought to substitute for it another much more philo- 

 sophical. This anatomist gave to each muscle a name formed by two words 

 indicating the insertions of the organ. Girard imported this ingenious 

 idea into veterinary anatomy. 



Nevertheless, notwithstanding its advantages, this new nomenclature 

 did not supersede the old one ; because it ceased to be correct when applied 

 to comparative anatomy, the same muscles not having the same insertions 

 in all the species. 1 



1 It is not, however, that the ancient nomenclature has more advantages in this 

 respect than the new. What can be more improper, for example, than the names of 

 deltoid, splenius, soleus, digastricus, etc.? Do the muscles which receive these desig- 

 nations, considered in mammals only, offer in all species the form or the structure which 

 justifies the employment of these names in the human species? Are the distinctive 

 epithets of great, medium, little, etc., given to many of them, reasonably applicable in 

 every case ? May not the same objection be urged against the majority of the names 

 derived from their uses, complications, etc.? 



No system of imological nomenclature is really philosophical, and we are of those 

 who believe it to be indispensably necessary to create one ; indeed, we are inclined to think 

 that it would be simple and easy to attain this result in starting from a basis whose 

 fixity and invariability should be well defined. And this basis is, in our opinion, already 

 discovered ; it is the principle of connections founded by E. Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire in his 

 immortal ' Philosophie Anatomique,' a principle to which modern science certainly owes its 

 finest conquests. 



This is a subject which it is our intention to treat in a special work ; but we may, 

 nevertheless, indicate here the manner in which it presents itself to us. 



We are desirous that the myological nomenclature should rest entirely, in the first place, 

 on the relations of the muscles with the pieces of the skeleton, or with other organs equally 

 fixed and very important ; in the second place, on the reciprocal connections of the muscles. 



Such is our plan ; and it is not precisely new, for the old. anatomists were often 

 inspired with it, though unwittingly, as the principle on which it is founded was to 

 them entirely unknown ; this circumstance, however, immediately leads us to an appre- 

 ciation of its value. For instance, what could be happier tl.an the name of intercostals 

 given to the muscles situated between the ribs, and their distinction into external and 

 internal ? Here we have names which indicate the relations of the muscles they desig- 

 nate with the portions of the skeleton and the reciprocal connections of these muscles. It 

 can also be applied in an equally rigorous manner to every species. We may also cite 

 the supracostals, the intertransverse, the transverse spinous, the subscapularis, the 

 supraspinous, the subspinous, etc., as they are ibund in a greater or less marked degree 

 in identical conditions. 



Other muscles have received names derived in part from their situation, and in part 

 from their volume. These names are far from being as convenient as the first ; as may 

 be judged from the following examples : 



In the majority of vertebrate animals, there are three important muscles situated 

 above and behind the pelvis, and forming the basis of the buttock; they have been 

 designated gluteah, and this name is convenient, because it designates their situation. 

 But to distinguish them from each other, regard has been had to their volume ; so that 

 there is a great, a medium, and a small gluteus. This is an error, however, for the volume 

 of the muscles is subject to the greatest variations, and a voluminous muscle in one 

 species may be a very small one in another, and vice versa. The muscle analogous to the 

 gluteus maximus in Man has been described by Bourgelat as the minimus, and by Lafosse 

 and Kigot as the medius. With regard to the gluteus medius of Man, its representative 

 in the lower animals has been designated as the maximus by the majority of veterinary 

 anatomists. What confusion ! And how easy it was to evade it by distinguishing these 

 muscles, not by their volume, but by their reciprocal connections, which are the same in 

 every species ! Is it not, indeed, more natural to substitute the names of superficial, 

 middle, and deep gluteals, for those of great, etc ? 



The same remark is applicable to the muscles which, in Man, cover the anterior 

 aspect of the chest. Designated in common, and justly so, as pectorals, these muscles 

 are wrongly distinguished into great and little; for the last, which is already an 



