w 



o 



I 



IN THE LIMBS OF MAMMALIA. 33 



ANTERIOR. POSTERIOR. 



g> ( Flexor carpi radialis longior, Peronaeus brevis, 



3 j, " brevior, Peronaeus tertius, 



| -j Flexor carpi ulnaris, Tibialis anticus, 



^ T 



^ ( Extensor carpi radialis, Peronaeus longus, 



| ] 5 f Palmaris longus, Plantaris, 



a < ^ ( "* 1 Gastrocnemius, 



2 j ^ ( Extensor carpi ulnaris, Tibialis posticus, 



O J f 



^Oj \ Soleus, 



bb I 



j Flexor profundus digitorum, Flexor brevis digitorum, 



Flexor sublimis digitorum, Flexor longus digitorum, 



4? ] Palmaris brevis, 



Extensor proprius pollicis, Extensor longus digitorum, 



" " indicis, 



~ , minimi digiti Extensor proprius pollicis, 



. / 



Extensor longus digitorum, Extensor brevis digitorum. 



We have now seen the general plan, or the morphology, according to which the muscles 

 of the mammalian limbs appear to be arranged, and also the general use, or the physiology 

 of that plan ; but in no case have we found it so closely adhered to as to exhibit what 

 might be called a typical condition of the parts ; everywhere we detect some variation 

 according to the special functions of the muscles. The attachments of a muscle may be 

 changed, as with the short flexors of the fingers; but this is far more common with respect 

 to the origins than the insertions, if indeed the latter ever are changed ; the origin of a mus- 

 cle may be even duplicated, as in the biceps humeri. Quite often there are extra (acces- 

 sory) muscles, as about the shoulder arid hip; and of some of the latter, (olturatores interims 

 and extern/us, the gemelli and quadratics lumborum] I have not yet been able to discover the 

 morphology ; occasionally, too, a muscle is deficient, at any rate in ordinary animals, as 

 the longitype of the long flexor of the arm, latissimus dorsi. 



We may not in every case be able to see the precise value of these variations from the 

 general plan ; nor can we even generalize them by asserting that they are more numerous 

 and difficult to understand, at the two extremities of the limbs, as might be expected from 

 the great mobility allowed by the ball-and-socket joints at the one, and the increased num- 

 ber and combined movements of the parts composing the other, and that the muscles are 

 most regular in the intermediate regions of the limbs. 



But whether we comprehend them or not, all these variations must have a foundation in 

 use ; for all morphology is for the sake of teleology ; it is true the relation is also that of 

 cause and effect ; but each effect becomes in turn the cause of some use below it, while 

 each cause is the effect of some power above it, till we reach Deity, from whom all things 

 are. In their highest terms morphology and teleology are as Creator and Creation, as God 

 and the Universe : the one can only be manifested through the other, which again is heter- 

 ogeneous and scattered without the former. It is the universal principle of concentrated 

 representation ; " many particulars uniting under one general, which in turn unites with 

 others under a higher, and so on to Infinity. 



Morphology and teleology appear as master and servant ; but this is only an appearance 

 of the relation when viewed a posteriori; and a view a priori shows that the reverse exists 

 9 



