E 4 ] 
mention, in this Place, with the greateft Reverence, 
that indefatigable Anatomift the late Doftor "James 
Douglas, whofe Treatife of the Mufcles, I find, was 
not known to the' famous anatomical Critic * * San- 
torini, or he could not have quoted, befides Eufta- 
chius, two more modern Authors for the Difcovery 
of the Mufcle called the Coccygaus , neither of whom 
could ever have known this very Name, if Dr. "Dou- 
glas had not invented it, when he difeover’d the 
Mufcle which he call’d fo, fome confiderable Time 
before he publifh’d his Myographies comparat£ fpeci? 
men , which the World was favoured with in the. 
Year 1707. 
VII, 
Now, although the firft Difcovery of this Mufcle 
has been given to Eujlachius , becaufe fomething like. 
it is feen upon a back View of one of his Figures y, 
yer, fuppofing that Author’s Figures right as to this 
Point, our Dr. Douglas is abfolutely as certainly an 
original Difcoverer of this Mufcle as Euftachiusy. 
bccaufe the Plates of the latter were concealed from 
the 
* Santorini , in his Obfervationes anatomic a, has thefe Words; 
* Gptam'Vii poflrerna levatoris fibra triangulari illt mujculo adjlent, 
« qui jaindiu ab Euftachio exhibitus , deinde ab clar . Chefeldeno, et 
e Mor^agno, turn retrahendo et levando coccygi , turn its partibus fir - 
« irtandis tribuitur , &c? He alfofeems not to know what Lancifius 
mentions in his Letter to Dr. Fantonus, that Morgagni was invited 
to affift in the Explanations ’ Eujlachtus*^ Tables; and,confequently. 
ih it he was the lets likely at that time to have any Share in the Difco- 
very of that Mufcle, which no doubt appears on a back View of a 
male ilar Body in that Author’s 36th Table, at the time of Lancifius y s 
bcin ^ employ’d to explain them ; of wl^ch moTe hereafter. 
