(504 MR. J. C. GALTON ON THE MYOLOGY OF 



and Megatherium found a place among the Sloths, and the Glyptodon supported a claim 



of kinship to the Armadillo 1 . 



If, on the other hand, the variations of muscles can reasonably be regarded as influ- 

 enced by, or " as subsidiary to," the character of their bony attachments, before it can be 

 determined what morphological value the former possess, we must first ascertain the 

 probable amount of osseous influence which has been brought into play (a task towards 

 the performance of which neither physiology nor pathology appears as yet to promise 

 much aid), or, at all events, obtain a sure knowledge of the homologies of the subjacent 

 bony framework (an inquiry in which, as regards the upper limb, the researches of Rathke 

 and Parker will stand us in good stead, but in the case of the lower member there may 

 yet be some groping about and stumbling) ; or, in default of such aids, the consideration 

 of the skeleton must be set aside, and, regarding muscles per se, we must construct for 

 our use " a typical vertebrate myozoon" to which, Procrustes-like, we can, as accurately 

 as may be, adapt our muscular waifs and strays. 



As regards teleology, it does not appear sufficient to consider the end of the general 

 arrangement of the muscles of any given limb, to the exclusion of the special items con- 

 tributed towards this end, or physiological total, by distinct muscles; for, to take an 

 instance, if we content ourselves with the general observation that it is burrowing with 

 which the muscular arrangement in the fore limb of the Armadillo, Aard-vark, and Mole 

 appears to be chiefly concerned, we run the risk of overlooking the divers means by which 

 this seemingly uniform result is brought about, and may omit to accredit an important 

 share in the work, in the case of the two former animals, to the hugely developed and 

 combined triceps and dorso-epitrochlien, and, in the case of the latter, to the teres major, 

 a muscle which, as both Meckel and Cuvier have remarked, reaches an enormous degree 

 of development in this animal 2 . 



Whether the likenesses or unlikenesses which certain muscular systems in Dasypus 

 and Orycteropus may bear towards each other be due to a congruity, or the reverse, in 

 their relations (be they morphological or teleological), or be brought about by a similarity 

 or dissimilarity in conditions of existence (a plastic influence to which, according to 



1 The soundness of such claim, however, in the eyes of certain good authorities is hy no means as yet distinctly 

 proven. M. Pouchet, for instance, in a rdsurne of a paper upon the osteology of Glyptodon clavipes, G. giganteus, and 

 Ilplophorus euphractus, remarks, « Ceci tient, comme nous l'avons dit, a ce que nous manquons des points de compa- 

 rison necessaires, puisque nous ne connaissons complement a pen pros aucun de cos animaux. Ce n'est pas avec le 

 cou des uns, le hassin des autres, la carapace de ceux-ci et la queue de ceux-la qu'on pent faire des distinctions ou des 

 rapprochements defimtifs, les animaux semblables par un de ces points pouvant differ enormement pour tons lee 



autres. -ContrOmtto* a VAnatomie des Edentes, par Georges Pouchet, Ch. Robin, Journ. de l'Anat. et de la Physiol, 

 vol. iii. p. 351, 1866. 



* Meckel says of this muscle (op. tit. p. 500), « Ungeheuer stark, wohl am stark.ten ist er bein M.mlwurf, wo er 

 den ganzen XJntergratenmuskel bedeckt." 



The same muscle is clearly represented by Cuvier in one of his figures of the myology of the Mole (Anat. Comp. 

 pi 80) ; and m the short notes appended to the plate, it is stated that « Le grand rond est extrOm,ment puissant et 

 tenement saillant que dans la fig. 1 on pourrait croire qu'il se fixe au cubitus " 



In the Mole-Eat of the Cape (Mus Capons, Linn.), the tere, major does not attain so great a development (see pi 



dans 



