« AnteriorContinuar »
brae, but of these only one pair represent the zygapophyses of human anatomy. The old term, therefore, retains in familiarity what it loses in accuracy. Again, we cannot see the merit of neural ate and transverse ate, over neurapophyses and pleurapophyses. The word apophysis is not harder to remember than process; and a student might complain of having to distinguish between a transverse ala and a transverse process, which in the dorsal region would be distinct, in the lumbar the same.
Mr. Humphrey gives us the drawing *of an ideal vertebra, of which the simplicity consists in there being twenty-one component parts—namely, centrum 1; neural processes 2; neural alae 2; neural spines 2; superior transverse processes 2; inferior transverse processes 2; superior transverse ate 2; inferior transverse alaa 2; haemal processes 2; haemal ate 2; haemal spines 2. We wait to see the specimens which will be brought forward to illustrate this compound structure, reminding Mr. Humphrey that Professor Owen's typical vertebra of sixteen elementary pieces can be demonstrated in many animals, of which the one selected is usually the crocodile.
In thus speaking of homological anatomy, we beg to refer the reader to an unpretending, yet well-written and scientific little work by Dr. George Ogilvie, Lecturer on the Institutes of Medicine in Marischal College, Aberdeen. He need not have apologized in his preface for the popular form of the work, inasmuch as it is precisely the thing wanted, and we can readily foresee that the book will pass into very general use. In the appendix there is drawn up a table of the exceptions taken to Owen's system by Maclise and Goodsir (p. 173); and one of these seems especially to have influenced the conclusion of Mr. Humphrey, namely, "it is contended that, in limiting the pieces of a vertebra, as he has done, Professor Owen has given his system a stringency which does not exist in nature." But to this we reply that the essence of homological anatomy is "stringency." And unless it be true that all varieties of form can be referred to an archetype, and every element of bone assigned a fixed and proper place, the system must inevitably expire, as Dr. Ogilvie has expressed, although there is no single plan of construction applicable to all animals, yet a certain uniformity of orgamzation is observable in each primary division.
We decline any remarks upon the vertebrate construction of the skull until we see a fuller account of the arguments upon which Mr. Humphrey's system is founded. But we hope to read a better style of anatomy than that published in his homology of the limbs. The homology between the patella and the olecranon will not be received in the present day, for it must«of necessity establish a relation between the thumb and the little toe, or vice versd. Let Mr. Humphrey study comparative anatomy for some years more, and use his powers of reflection, which are considerable, for a similar period, exclusively on the subject, and then, perhaps, he may present to us remarks on so grand a subject which will increase his fame. But we protest against the multiplication of baseless theories, each of which acquires a local reputation just as great as is proportioned to the accidental position of the author and the difficulties of the subject.
A peculiar feature in Henle's work is the representation of vertical segments of joints and limbs, through both soft and harder parts. These drawings are beautifully executed, and are somewhat out of the common. Take, for example, the drawings of the hip (p. 129), of the knee (p. 137); of the three cuneiform bones with their ligaments (p. 177); or of the articulations between the os calcis and astragalus (p. 160). Throughout the whole of this work there is an accuracy and an attention to detail almost wearisome to a reviewer, but nevertheless it is a point which renders the work invaluable as a book of reference, and which stamps it with a merit which will doubtless be appreciated by both lecturer and student. But even he falls into confusion in instituting a comparison between the bones of the upper and lower extremities. He contrasts the olecranon attached to the ulna, with the patella attached to the tibia, and consequently repeats the errors of Vicqd'Azyr and of Cruveilhier, of whom the latter remarked, "The superior extremity of the tibia is represented by the superior half of the ulna, and the inferior half of the tibia by the inferior half of the radius, while the fibula is represented by the superior half of the radius and the inferior half of the ulna." ('Anatomie Descriptive,' t. i. p. 315.) Vicq-d'Azyr and Cuvier conceived that the anterior extremity was not parallel, or repeated by the posterior one of its own side, but by that of the opposite side.
Professor Owen has reminded us that the late Dr. Barclay, by his extensive knowledge of comparative anatomy, showed long ago how the ulna was the homotype of the fibula, and exhibited the same variety and unsteadiness of character, sometimes large, sometimes small; and sometimes merely a process of the more constant bone of their respective segments. In the leg-bones of the woombat (Phascolomys) this correcter view is maintained by the presence of a detached sesamoid bone upon the broad, high, and expanded process from the proximal extremity of the fibula.
As an illustration of the superior manner in which Henle has performed his task, we refer the reader to the description of the knee-joint (p. 132), of which there are eighteen beautifully executed drawings. No work with which we are acquainted shows so accurately or variedly the relation of bones, ligaments, tendons, muscles, bursfe, &c., both in the extended and the fixed position of the limb. He concludes the account in the following words:—
"Complicated as is the knee-joint considered anatomically, so is its mechanism simple. The deductions which the brothers Weber have given upon the subject leave scarcely anything to add. As compared with the elbow-joint, the peculiarity of the knee-joint consists chiefly in this,—that the conditions to limit the movements to certain directions are supplied in the former by the configuration of the bones; in the latter, by peculiar ligaments. The whole ligamentous apparatus of the knee is directed to favour no other movement than flexion out of the extended position. Particularly the ligamenta cruciata, with the posterior part of the capsule, oppose any propagation of the movement of extension by which the tibia might form an obtuse angle with the femur. With flexion, on the other hand (a slipping and rolling movement of the condyles in the articular surface of the tibia), commences a general relaxation of the ligaments, which, while the crucial ligaments constantly hold the opposed articulating surfaces in apposition, permits a rotatory movement of the tibia in its long axis (Pronation and Supination according to Weber); a rotation during which the middle part of the joint is relatively at rest; the lateral parts are in motion (p. 149)."
But the internal condyle of the femur, in the rotatory movement of the leg when in the flexed position, acts somewhat as the axis, in which plays the articulating surface of the tibia; and this is the reason why the internal semilunar cartilage is fixed at both extremities as well as at its most prominent central part, while the external semilunar cartilage is rather circular in form, attached only by the converging extremities, and free in the rest of its circumference to follow the movements of the tibia.
In writing upon such a subject it is a good surgical point to remember that, after chronic inflammatory disease of the knee by which the lateral ligaments have become softened and elongated, the leg is almost invariably drawn backwards and rotated outwards, the internal articulating surfaces still keeping their normal relation.
A new feature in Henle's diagrams and illustrations is the colouring of the muscular tissue red, whereby the eye can at once distinguish it from bone or tendon, and this is particularly useful in such segmental representations as those of the foot. (pp. 158—160.)"
These drawings, as the author observes, are without exception original, and the sections are taken after nature. In order to obtain them, the joints and their ligaments with the other soft parts in the required position were sawn through, some of them in a frozen, others in an artificially hardened state. The dried parts regained their fulness and yielding condition by maceration in water, although in large sections, such as the knee, a considerable time, e. g., several weeks, was necessary.
The description of the articulation of the vertebral column is full of interest. Henle points out to the student how the direction ©f the articulating surfaces of the dorsal vertebrae favours the development of lateral curvature (skoliosis). The transition from the antero-posterior of the dorsal to the lateral directions of the lumbar articulating processes permits the springing movements of that trunk, and in the gradual transition of one to the other lies the cause of that rotatory displacement of the vertebrae which produces in spinal deformities such suflsering to the patient and anxiety to the surgeon. There are many remarks of interest referring to the composition and structure of the intervetebral cartilages, which are as well illustrated as the other parts of the work. The fasciculus upon the muscles has just appeared. The illustrations are again coloured, and are executed with an accuracy which will excite just admiration.
The greater part of Mr. Humphrey's work exhibits considerable research. The first chapter contains a very fair exposition of the views entertained by Stark, Bibra, Hoppe, Quain, Sharpey, Owen, Rees, and others ; followed by well-expressed observations of his own upon the form, processes, and peculiarities of bones, coupled with remarks upon some points of pathology. He rightly tells us that the term "duality" is not applicable to the skeleton. "We hear sometimes the expression 'duality' applied to the nervous system; and theories with regard to the duality of the mind have been based upon that construction of the brain in two halves which has suggested the phrase. With as much propriety might we speak of the duality of the skeleton, or of any body whose parts are disposed symmetrically about a centre." (p. 16.) We must content ourselves with mentioning the general arrangement of the work. The description of the periosteum, blood-vessels, of bone, nerves, and lymphatics, are such as would be appreciated by the learner. Mr. Humphrey will have it that there are 220 bones in the skeleton; and Mr. Gray is equally positive that there are but 206. Both are equally right. The numbering of the bones depends upon the age of the subject, and the fancy, horaological or otherwise, of the author; but we protest against such statements in modern works. Of what possible good can they be when two authors, both in the possession of abundant resources, and with skeletons without end at command, cannot arrive at the same conclusion?
In the account of the vertebral column there is much useful information, though nothing of particular novelty. We pass on to the description of the skull, the account of the cranial development being after Rathke and Reichert. The process of ossification, particularly "the parts formed respectively from bone and cartilage, being after Kolliker." It would be foreign to the purpose of a review to quote descriptions of bones, which are here correctly though purposely difiusely given, and intermixed with remarks from foreign authors. Mr. Humphrey has consulted the works of Kerkringius, Autenrieth, Spix, Blandin, Otto, Hyrtl, Lobstein, Weber, Beclard, Meckel, Luschka, Virchow, Hildebrant, Jourdan, Tiedemann, ,&c. ,fcc., and has accordingly gathered together a quantity of information, which he has arranged and made use of.
We have allusion to that hypothetical accident, which from time immemorial has been made "a point" in the anatomical lectures; namely, dislocation of the lower angle of the scapula over the latissimus dorsi.
"The importance to the movements of the arm of such provision for the efficient action of these muscles is well illustrated by cases in which the latter are weak, or paralyzed, or inactive from some cause, or in which the angle of the scapula has slipped from beneath the edge of the latissimus dorsi. In such cases the contraction of the deltoid, instead of causing the head of the humerus to rotate in the glenoid cavity, causes the glenoid cavity to roll upon the humerus, and pulls the lower angle of the scapula backwards and upwards, so that it projects beside the spine. The patient may thus be rendered quite unable to raise the arm, each attempt to do so being followed by the revolution of the scapula instead of by the elevation of the elbow." (Humphrey, p. 365.)
Now, the lower angle of the scapula is perpetually rolling over the upper border of the latissimus dorsi, in the daily movement of the arm, and as perpetually rolling back again. The attaohraent of the serratus magnus to the scapula is such as to preclude the possibility of the accident here described; we know of no surgeon of authority who would affirm that he had ever witnessed the occurrence in an unmistakcable form. Moreover, in cases of deformity (lateral curvation), in which with the posterior projection of the ribs the scapula is so thrown backwards that the inferior angle never comes into relation with the latissimus dorsi, the movements of the arm at the shoulder-joint are quite perfect. Had Mr. Humphrey availed himself more liberally of Professor Owen's great discoveries and generalizations, and less frequently of detached remarks from our German brethren, he might have spared himself the anomaly of putting in the form of "a note" the explanation of the homologies of the olecranon and the patella; nor would he have called the pisiform bone of the carpus a sesamoid bone.
We do not recommend this work to quite the same class of persons who should avail themselves of the labours of Mr. Gray. There is a want of that "harsh conciseness," which would be felt by the anatomical student. But as lectures to a general or university audience (which is in truth their proper character), they would command attention, and gain for the author the repute of industry and thought. He must have continued his researches for many years, and we wish him every success in his endeavours to unravel some of the mysteries which ignorance still attaches to the science of anatomy. To him (with others) is undoubtedly due the merit of early introducing into his lectures the system of homology, and if we recommend him to pause ere he detaches himself from the followers of Owen, we do so with the firm conviction that a brighter path of renown will be open to him by further developing that which the great Hunterian Professor has established on a basis not easily to be shaken, than by ranging himself with those who somewhat hastily and captiously wrangle over a subject which it needs a lifetime to master.
The execution of the Drawings by Mrs. Humphrey is a work equally honourable to her as a wife and a lady of talent. Her example may be followed by others with advantage.
Dr. Ogilvie puts forward a claim, which we readily accord him, of popularizing the views now generally held by philosophical naturalists in regard to a common plan of construction traceable in each of the primary divisions of the animal kingdom:—
"We are as far as ever from any general form common to all animals. We cannot, for instance, say in what direction the body should be extended, what sort of appendages it should have, or how they should be arranged, we can predicate nothing of its supporting framework, or of the conformation and disposition of its internal organs. Hence the impossibility apparent, on a moment's reflection, of making the rudest sketch, or even conceiving one, which shall stand for an animal in general, without the specialities of any particular class, of delineating anything which, without representing exclusively a star-fish or a snail, a worm or an insect, a fish or a bird, a reptile or a quadruped, or any other particular kind of animal, shall yet indicate so much as is common to them all Not that it is intended to deny the possibility of assigning a common form which shall be more or less applicable to many different animals." (p. 3.)
He proceeds to give a very clear account of the peculiarities of the vertebrate type, from which all controversial anatomy is banished. The following is a specimen of his style of writing:—
"When these bones (i. e., the vertebrae) are in their natural connexion, the bodies form by their superposition the massive column of the spine, while the superior arches jdintly form a latticed canal termed neural or nervous, from its lodging the great nervous chord; and the inferior arches form another, called hremal, from its enclosing the heart and other blood organs along with the alimentary canal. This haemal canal is much more irregular than the neural; it is in some places very defective, so far as the bony skeleton is concerned; but when it has such bony walls it is in general much larger than the other, from the greater bulk of the organs it has to enclose. Of this we have illustration in the chest and pelvis, where the whole circuit of the ribs and breastbone in the one, and of the pelvic bones in the other, are considered as entering into the haemal arches of the corresponding vertebrae." (p. 14.)
The work consists of nine chapters, in which the author leads us from the vertebrate type, through the articulate and mollusca, to the radiata and protozoa. He speaks of the mutual relations of the leading types of organization, of type and design co-extensive with organic nature, and of the bearing of such knowledge on natural theology.
"There are some (he says) who still think all the points of animal organization explicable on principles of mere adaptation. It may not, therefore, be out of place to adduce a few illustrations of their inadequacy to account for the peculiarities observed; and indeed ire need not go far to look for such, for in the very exact symmetry of our own bodies, and of those of animals generally, we meet with an instance of an arrangement of parts to which we can rarely assign any obvious end of direct utility. The further we trace back the course of development, the more marked is the symmetry, and the more universal. It is therefore evidently the rule, the departures from it being due to the subsequent disproportionate development of various organs. These changes we can occasionally account for on principles of adaptation; as, for instance, the greater size of that one of the anterior pair of pinching claws with which the hermit-crab closes the mouth of its borrowed shell. But we cannot show that the symmetry itself is subservient to the well-being of the animal in any constant or general way; though in special cases, of course, it may; thus in birds and insects it probably makes the balance more perfect for flight; and it has been observed that in these, of all animals, this arrangement is most perfectly carried out . Yet the singular fact of the non-development of the right ovary in birds shows that we must not even here lay too much stress on the symmetry of their other organs." (p. 140.)
We cannot forbear quoting one of Dr. Ogilvie's concluding passages :—
"Strange to say, neither in Oken, by whose penetrating intellect were laid the foundations of the science of typical forms, nor in some of those who since have most successfully prosecuted it, did the principles they unfolded awaken any recognition of the moral attributes of God. Immersed in a dreamy pantheism, they could regard Him only as the animating principle of the universe, or lower still, simply as a necessary existence inevitably mamfesting itself by a continued succession of phenomena, like a great panorama ever unrolling. But the reproach which has in consequence attached to such investigations, is in reality most unfounded; for so long as the truth of the Divine personality is firmly grasped, the evidences of unity of organization, instead of militating against the free agency of the Creator, tend greatly to elevate our conceptions of His power and wisdom. We then see that in His works a greater problem is solved than the mere adaptation of means to ends; for this, without losing any of its completeness, is combined with- a certain harmony and uniformity in the means themselves. We see the Almighty Creator, for the manifestation of Hi3 glory or other wise purposes, subjecting himself, as it were, to laws, that the power and wisdom which bring it to perfection all the same, may be the more apparent," (p. 167.)
We trust that the recent changes which the examining boards have thought fit to authorize—namely, that of the establishment of practical examinations in anatomy before the final test on general professional proficiency—will have as one good result the re-development of industry among students in the dissecting rooms. For many years the lecture theatre has been the great centre of attraction; a false but captivating system of tuition has been all-popular; a young man from an agricultural district, with just a bare knowledge of his mother-tongue, gasps in wonder to hear a fluent lecturer quote the opinions, the theories, and the writings of anatomists, physiologists, and savans of all ages, of all countries and languages. He does not know that this stupendous knowledge rests on no firmer basis than Schmidt's Jahrbtlcher, and that it is as easily acquired as cast aside. The first business of the student of medicine is to gain a thorough knowledge of the human body. For this end he must frequent the dissecting rooms, and he may obtain all the assistance which he requires from writers of his own country. Where can a more accurate work be found than Ellis's 'Demonstration?' where a more complete treatise than Quain and Sharpey's? To these must be added