Correspondence (incoming) - F

Plate V. Page 37 line 1, "a,a,a" For Iliac [Wnigs?]: Incorrect Page 42 line 12, "h" for attachment of Gr. Glutaeus to [Tsochanter?]: Incorrect. Page 43 line 13, "s" for [posterior?] [branch?] Long Vastus; Letter wanting in plate.

Plate VI. Page 38 line 21, "a" for [Psoas?] Magnus; same letter used twice in Page 45 line 19, "a" Origin of branch of [Lemmenbrandus?] same plate Note, the sections of bones in plate VI, vertebrae and [ischium?], might well be more distinct.

Plate VII. Page 38 line 26, "c" for Iliacus; Page 45 line 21, "c" for lower [surfischium?] - same letter used twice in same plate.

Plate VIII. Page 42 line 19, "P" for deep gluteus; letter wanting on plate.

Plate IX There is no lettering of any kind on this plate: five references to it on pp. 42,44,45,47.

Plate X Page 49 line 31, "S" for [Pastem?]; Capital letter for lowercase Page 48 line 33, "P"; Page 49 line 82, "t" - Two distinct letters for different parts of same tendon

Plate XI. Page 68 line 11, "f" for Int'l Flexor of Shoulder: the words, 'Plate XI' omitted.

On P.44 line 25, "tt" is used of the Triceps Femoris no plate given. It appears to refer to III, V, VIII. On P. 39 l. 21, "e", refering to Sup'l Glutaeus, is used without any plate given, and none of the plates show an "e" that can be meant. My own impression is that numbers are better than letters in references to plates, because of the limited supply of letters, and that the same organ should be marked with the same number in every plate where it occurs. In the present work the references would hardly run above 100 or 125. The same numbers also should be confined always to the same organ. In Chap. III the letter "a" is used of five different parts, "b" of three, and "c" of at least four. Uniformity in the use of Italics and Capitals for the names of bones and muscles, and also in the use of Latin and English names, would be worth preserving, for the sake of clearness. The former is contradictory at pp.27-8; while at p.73 we have Flexor

[brachin?] and at p.74 Triceps of the arm. Marshall's (human) Anatomy for Artists is a model in all these respects. As to the skeleton, it is remarked that Plate II is presented "for the convenience of those who require it." It is quite as essential as the other plates, and the addition of other views of the skeleton and perhaps a comparative view of the skeletons of man and horse, would increase the value of the book. Without them it is hard to form a clear idea of the forms and relation of irregular bones, such as pelvis, scapula, femur, [etc?], or of the distance of the attachment of muscles from the median plane. Far better than nothing would be little woodcuts such as those in one of Winsor and Newton's [Shilling?] Hand-books. The Artistic Anatomy of the Horse by Waterhouse Hawkins. To the points of the skeleton designated in Plate II might well be added the Tarsus and the Carpus, the Calcaneum, and the First

and Second Metatarsals and Metacarpals if these terms are better than the usual digits. As to the Muscles; while some of the descriptions are admirably clear, others have given me much trouble. For myself I should prefer the usual preliminary tabulation of the muscles of each region of the body as it is studied, and it would help greatly to have the origin and [insertion?] of each muscle, and its position, whether deep or superficial, briefly stated immediately before the description of the muscle. I append such corrections and observations as occured [to me?] in examining the early chapters.

Chapter I Page 14 line 25, For "facia", read fascia

Chapter II Page 24 line 18, "Metacarpels"? Page 28 line 9, [Is?] not [anchylosis?] more modern than "ankylosis" Page 27 line 22 "dorsal"; Capital D, as "Sacral", above

Chap. II, Continued.

Page 27 line 8, Italics and Romans mixed up along here.

Chapter III Page 38 line 56, 5 + 85=90: 10 per ct. of force [unaccounted?] for. A difficult passage, because under the head of Tensor Vaginal Femoris, the Superficial Gluteus, a muscle of equal or superior importance to the Tensor, is described incidentally, and at the same time is not at all clearly indicated in the plate III. There are several errors in the references to plates, and much confusion of the muscles with each other in the text; so that a half dozen readings is necessary for its comprehension; the more discouraging because it is one of the first descriptions of muscles to be encountered by the reader. It ought to be recast.

Page 40 line 3, For "Mesian", read Median. But Sir W. Hawkins has "mesial"! Page 41 line [3.4?], For "latter" substitute propellers and supporters, for cleanness. Page 41 line 15, Insert "All the foregoing attachments constitute the origin of the muscle. Page 41 line 19, The [present?] plate does not show that the great