146 
On the Sesamoids of the Knee- Joint 
cadavers. It is further noteworthy that he does not state that he has definitely in 
a given cadaver discovered sesamoids in the heads of M. gastrocnemius. He speaks 
as he might have spoken of the sesamoid of the great toe with fifteen centuries of 
history behind it. There is no statement of a new discovery, nor that the occurrence 
is not universal. He writes as he might write of the patella itself! We have not 
succeeded in finding any reference to the fabellae in Vesalius' work of 1543*. 
The next reference we have been able to find to the fabellae occurs in Eustachius' 
Opuscula Anatomica, issued in 1564, but the permission to print which dates from 
1562. We have quoted the relevant passage in the footnote to our p. 138. We seem 
on reading Eustachius' words to be in the atmosphere of a man who had really 
examined the matter in many cases, and we are almost inclined to wonder whether, 
if Eustachius had been able to get his works printed when they were written f, 
Vesalius would have been the reputed discoverer of the fabellae. At any rate 
Eustachius' statements are correct, and here as elsewhere he not only criticises 
Vesalius, but does so legitimately J. 
Fallopius in his Observationes Anatomicae of 1561 (fol. 113) says that the 
fabellae are frequent in apes and that he has seen them, but that only Vesalius 
has seen them in man. 
At the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries we have Caspar 
Bauhin. He has in his works a good deal about sesamoid bones. In his Be corporis 
hvmani fabrica (Basel, 1590) there are references to the sesamoids on pp. 356, 372, 
395, but we have failed to examine a copy, and cannot say whether he refers to the 
fabellae, but he probably does. In his Anatome (Basel, 1597), after enumerating 
(p. 259) sesamina duodecim of hand and foot, he continues " Hie addere possimus 
sesamina duo in poplite§." Again in his Theatrwni Anatomicum (Frankfurt, 1603) 
he has considerable refei'ences to sesamoid bones (pp. 1169 — 1171, 1207, 1277 — 80), 
and for the fabellae (p. 1278). He gives, Tab. XV, Fig. 11, diagrams of the sesamoid 
bones of the hand and foot, even the very small ones, but not of the fabellae. This 
leads us to believe that he had never seen the latter. Confirmation for this view 
arises from the fact that what he says is principally paste-and-scissors-work from 
Galen and Vesalius. Speaking generally of sesamoids in his Cap. xxix, he does 
say, however, "solida sunt, rotunda, aliquantulum depressa, aliquando cartilaginosa, 
aliquando ossea." This may be original, but is most probably due to an earlier 
writer in a passage which has escaped us. 
Lastly in Bauhin's Institutiones anatomicae, Basel, 1609, he refers to sesamoids 
in each head of origin of M. gastrocnemius (p. 247). 
* The first edition of bis anatomy wliicli appeared at Basle in this year. 
t As to Eustachius' difficulties in publication see Bioiirapltie Universelle, Paris, 181.5, Tom xiii, p. 534. 
X Eustachius' writings seem to indicate some deep ground for dislike of Vesalius. Can it be that 
unpublished discoveries of Eustachius were talked about and made use of by Vesalius in his great work? 
At any rate Eustachius clearly knew more about the fabellae in man than Vesalius did. 
§ This statement of the fabellae being m popUte must not be taken as referring to the popliteal 
muscle's origin, but simply when met with in the early anatomists as indicating the neighbourhood of 
the popliteal surface. 
