OCR Text |
Show 1891.] MR. F. E. BEDDARD ON HAPALEMUR GRISEUS. 461 5. The Crurceus arises from nearly the whole length of the femur. All these four muscles are attached to the fascia; they are merely mentioned in order to show that there is nothing abnormal about them. 6. Biceps femoris.-This muscle arises by a long strong tendon from the ischial tuberosity ; it is inserted by a long, flat, and excessively thin tendon on to fascia covering legs and on to tibia ; it is connected at its origin with 7. Semitendinosus.-The Semitendinosus is a thin muscle fleshy at its origin ; it is inserted by a long flat tendon, more than one inch in length, on to the cnemial crest of tibia in front of and below insertion of sartorius. 8. The Semimembranosus is a much larger muscle ; it arises from the ischium, behind the origin of the semitendinosus, but is slightly overlapped by that muscle in the front portion of its origin; its insertion is by a strong, flat, but short tendon on to the head of tibia. 9. The Gracilis arises from the symphysis pubis ; it is fused near its insertion with sartorius, and both are inserted by a common tendon along with the semitendinosus. 10, 11. Gastrocnemius and Soleus appear to form one muscle with three heads; the soleus arises from the fibula by a flat ribbon-shaped tendon. The Plantaris was totally absent. 12. The Tibialis posticus ends in a long tendon inserted into tarsus at base of great toe; its origin is hidden below flexors. 13, 14. The Flexor longus hallucis and the Flexor digitorum both give off a tendon to tbe hallux ; they blend before the division of the latter into the tendons of digits. 15. The Tibialis anticus arises from the tibia only, and not from the femur also. 16. The Extensor proprius hallucis is long and slender; it supplies last phalanx of hallux. There are, as in other Lemurs, four Peroneals. The account of the myology given above so far as it goes lends support to Messrs. Mivart and Mune's conclusion that " there is nothing of a very singular nature in the muscles distinguishing any one genus from its fellows." There is no peculiarity that I have been able to discover which is distinctive of tbe genus Hapalemur. Where the genera of Lemurs differ among themselves, Hapalemur nearly always comes nearest to Lemur. This is the case with the majority of the muscles dissected by me, but it is not invariably so; a comparison of my descriptions will show a few points of agreement with genera other than Lemur: for example, the absence of a Pectoralis secundus allies Hapalemur not to the genus Galago, but to Galago alleni only ; in the absence of a plantaris muscle Hapalemur agrees with Loris, Nycticebus, Perodicticus, and apparently also Galago peli. PROC. ZOOL. Soc-1891, No. XXXI. 31 |