/7/.I/. OON8IDEBATION8 <<\ mi: sTiuiT.h UU8CLE8, 177 



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

 poinK 



( 'haussier, struck by the imperfections of the nomenclature in trod need 

 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 bo 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 thia 



t tli;\n the IK-W. What can be more improper, for example, than the names of 



deltoid. >]>! -nius, snlcus, digastricus, etc.? Do the muscles which receive these desig- 



nations, coiiM.ler.-d in mammals only, offer in all species the form or the structure which 



ju.-tities the employment of these names in the human species? Ar the distinethe 



epithets of LT> at. medium, little, etc., given to many of them, reasonably applicable in 



oueT May not the same objection be urged against the majority of the names 



1 from tlnir u.-cs, complications, etc.? 



No system of myological nomenclatiire 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 und invariability should be well defined. And this basis is, in our opinion, already 

 dixMv.-red ; it i- the /irinciple of connections founded by E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire in his 

 immortal 1'h il>*ophie Anatomise,' 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, 



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

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

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



'ml ri nj 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 

 in-pired 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 apjm- 

 i of its value. For instance, what could be happier than the name of intercostalii 

 riven to the mu-.-les situated between the ribs, and their distinction into external und 

 we have names which indicate the relations of the mtiiu-lex they de.-iir- 

 i-ith tlt> i><irtiiiint ' if tlf fhihtnn <in<l the reciprocal connections of these . 



.ippli.-d in an equally rigorous manner to every wjHrie.s. We may a No eit>- 

 ipraeo.,taN. the intertraiisverw, the transverse spi nous, the subscapularis, the 

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

 in id'-ntinil condition*. 



< >ther muscles have received names derived in part from their situation, and in part 

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

 !* judged from the following examples : 



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

 above and )>eliind the pelvis, and forming the basis of the buttock; they have 



il iitrnl, and this name is convenient, because it designates their .-ituntion. 



. i.-iiniriii.-h them from each other, regard has been bad to their volume; so that 



r. at, a medium, and a small glutens. Thin is an error, however, for tin volume 



of ti. is subject to the greatest variations, and a voluminous mn.-cle in one 



may ! a \ery small one in another, and vice versa. Themnwk analogous to the 



glutens niiixitmiB in Man has been described by IVuirgelat as the minim-, 



an. I I me. liit.-. With re-anl to tl.e glutens me.lius of Man, it- representative 



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



anatomists. What confu.-ion ! And how easy it was t<> evndtt it by dUtinguishing tin > 



IIHIM-I. -. not by th.-ir volume, but by their reciiir.H-.il connections, which are the same in 



i not. indeed, more natural to substitute the mums of super: 

 middle, ami deep gluteals. for tho.-e of great, . t' p ''. 



Th.- .,ame fmark is appli.-able to tin- mu.-ele.-. which, in Man, cover the nnt 

 aipect of the .1 ! in common, and justly M, as peatoralt, these muscles 



arc wrongly distingui-li.-l into groat and little; for the Wt. whichbnlna.lv an 



N 



