The Anatomy of a T Y G M I E. ^~srL 



( Fig. 4. 44. ) continued flelTiy to the Os Calck, as Sylvius obferved it 

 in Jpes. The Tibials Antkuf ( Fig. 3. 49. ) was much Iarger,and con- 

 tinued fleftiy much lower, than in Man. Sylvius obferv'd an OsSefamoi- 

 des in the Tendon of this Mtfile in Apes. The Veronem primus ( Fig. 

 9. 51.) differ'd very little from that in M<?;? 5 it's Tendon having the 

 fame progrefs in the Bottom of the Foot^ to the Bone of the Metatarfus 

 of the Great Toe 5 which is neverthelefs denied by Galen to be exiftent 

 in Man -^ for which Vefalius, lib. 2. cap. 59. feverely Cenfures him. 1 

 have more than once, feen a Boney body-, placed in this Tendon at it's 

 Flexure on the Os Cuboides in Humane Bodies : The like is taken notice 

 of by Sylvius in an Ape. The Feroneus fecundus differ'd not from that in 

 Man. The Tibialis Fojiicus ( Fig. 4. 45. ) was not fo large as in Man. 



The Mufcles of the Great Toe differ'd from the Humane. The Exten- 

 for foUicis longus (Fig. 3. 52. ) had a more Oblique progrefs , and was 

 flethy lower. The Extenfir VoUick Jbrevis (Fig. 5. 59. ) was much lar- 

 ger, and it's progrefs on the Foot almoft tranfverfe. The Flexor VoUicis 

 longus was pretty large. The Flexor Pollick brevk ( Fig. 4. 47. ) was 

 very large, and infeparably joined with the Abdu&or , which was very 

 little.The Farijians tell us, The Great Toes of the Monkeys had Mufcles like 

 thofe of a Man's Thumb. Tht Extenfir Digitorum Fedk longus ( Fig. 3.53. ) 

 had no Tendon implanted on the Os Metatarfi of the Little Toe. The 

 Perforatus ( Fig. 4. 46. ) Perforans, ( ib. 48. ) Lumbricales, and Abdu- 

 Uor winimi Digiti, differ'd very little from thofe in Men. The Mufculus 

 Extenfir Digitorum brevif, and Tranfverfalis Fedfs did not appear in this 

 Animal. 



I (hall not at prefent give the Reader the trouble of the Reflexions, 

 that I intended, upon the Obfervations made in the Anatomy of this re- 

 markable Creature ; fince I am confcious ( having been fo tedious alrea- 

 dy ) that 'twill but farther tire him, and my felf too. I fhall therefore 

 now conclude this Difiourfi, with a brief Recapitulation of the Inftan- 

 ces I have given, wherein our Pygmie, more refembled the Humane kind, 

 than Jpes and Mcnkeys do : As likewife fum up thofe, wherein it differ'd 

 from a Man, and imitated the Ape-kind. The Catalogues of both are fo 

 large, that they fufBciently evince, That our Fygmie is no Man, nor 

 yet the Common Ape ; but a fort of Animal between both 5 and tho' a 

 Biped, yet of the ^tadrumanus-kind 5 tho' fome Men too, have been 

 obferved to ufe their Feet like Hands., as I have feen feveral. 



N 2 The 



