Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:03:50.637Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Abdominal Viscera of Cercocebus fuliginosus and Lagothrix humboldti

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2014

O. Charnock Bradley
Get access

Extract

The anatomy of the primates is responsible for a very considerable volume of contributions to morphological literature. But, quite naturally, those forms which have the closest affinity to man have been more extensively and more carefully observed than those occupying a lower position in the zoological scale. And, further, the most painstaking and accurate work has been done in connection with organs which are very specially modified in man, such, for example, as those of the nervous system. This is perfectly consistent with the desire to obtain any light, and from any source, which will facilitate the unravelling of the many problems of human structure. Moreover, the soft and flaccid viscera do not lend themselves to accurate observation so readily as do the more solid organs which retain their shape after their removal from the body. So it comes to pass that, up to quite recent times, the abdominal viscera, and more especially the hollow organs of the abdomen, such as the stomach and the intestines, have only received scant attention; or, if they have been more carefully examined, the descriptions as given prior to the introduction of modern methods cannot be held as absolutely satisfactory, because of the change of shape and disposition resulting from the removal of their natural support, to wit, the abdominal walls.

Type
Proceedings
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 24 , 1904 , pp. 505 - 543
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1904

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES TO LITERATURE

(1)Wurmb, , Mem. Soc. Batav. (mentioned by Flower).Google Scholar
(2)Otto, A. W., “Ueber eine neue Affen-Art den Cercopithecus (?) leucoprymnus,” Nova Ada Acad. Cœsar, vol. xii., 1825.Google Scholar
(3)Owen, R., “On the Stomach and Cæcum in two Species of Douc (Semnopitheaus entellus and S. fascicularis),” Proc. Zool. Soc. Land., 1833, p. 74.Google Scholar
Owen, R. “On the Sacculated Form of Stomach as it exists in the genus Semnopithecus,” Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., vol. i. p. 65, 1835.Google Scholar
Owen, R. “On the Stomach of Semnopithecus maurus,” Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1834, p. 6.Google Scholar
Owen, R. “Description of the Stomach of Colobus ursinus,” Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1841, p. 84.Google Scholar
(4)Martin, , “Observations on the Proboscis Monkey (Simia nasalis),” Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1837, p. 70.Google Scholar
(5)Huxley, T. H., “The Structure and Classification of the Mammalia,” Medical Times and, Gazette, 1864, vol. i.Google Scholar
(6)Flower, W. H., “On the Comparative Anatomy of the Organs of Digestion of the Mammalia,” Medical Times and Gazette, 1872, vols. i. and ii.Google Scholar
(7)Sandifort, , “Ontleerkundige Besohryving von een volwassen Orang-œtan,” Verhand. Nutur. Geseh. d. Nederland Overseeseh. Bezitfingen, 1840. (Quoted by Flower.)Google Scholar
(8)Patten, C. J., “The Form and Position of the Thoracic and Abdominal Viscera of the Ruffed Lemur (Lemur varius),” Trans. Roy. Acad. Med. Ireland, vol. xx. p. 441, 1902.Google Scholar
(9)Keith, A., and Wood Jones, F., “A Note on the Development of the Fundus of the Human Stomach,” Jour. Anat. and Phys., vol. xxxvi.; Proc. Anat. Soc. of Great Britain and Ireland, p. xxxiv, 1902.Google Scholar
(10)Struthers, J., “On Varieties of the Appendix Vermiformis, Cæcum, and Ileo-colic Valve in Man,” Edin. Med. Jour., vol. xxxix. pt. i. p. 289, 1893.Google Scholar
(11)Keith, A., “The Position and Mannerof Fixation of the Liver of Primates, and the part these factors play in the Lobulation of the Liver,” Jour. Anat. and, Phys., vol. xxxiii.; Proc. Anat. Soc. of Great Britain and Ireland, p. xxi, 1899.Google Scholar
(12)Ruge, G., “Der Verkürzungprocess am Rumpfe von Halbaffen,” Morph. Jahrb., Bd. xviii. p. 185, 1892.Google Scholar
(13)Ruge, G., “Die ausseren Formverhaltnisse der Leber bei den Primaten,” Morph. Jahrb., Bd. xxix. p. 450, 1902.Google Scholar
(14)Duvernoy, , “Études sur le Foie,” Ann. Soe. Nat., 2me. Série, t. iv. p. 269, 1835.Google Scholar
(15)Rolleston, G., “On the Homologies of the Lobes of the Liver in Mammalia,” Brit. Ass. Reports, 1861,—Notices and Abstracts, p. 174.Google Scholar
(16)Owen, R., On the Anatomy of Vertebrates — vol. III.,“Mammals,” 1868.Google Scholar
(17)Flower, W. H., and Lydekker, R., An Introduction to the Study of Mammals, Living and Extinct, p. 60, London, 1891.Google Scholar
(18)Rex, H., “Beiträge zur Morphologie der Säugerleber,” Morph. Jahrb., Bd. xiv. p. 517, 1888.Google Scholar
(19)Cantlie, J., “On a New Arrangement of the Right and Left Lobes of the Liver,” Jour. Anat. and Phys., vol. xxxii.; Proc. Anat. Soc. Great Britain and Ireland, p. iv, 1898.Google Scholar
Cantlie, J. “On the Lobes of the Liver,” Brit. Med. Jour., 1899, vol. ii. p. 833.Google Scholar
(20)Thomson, A., “The Morphological Significance of certainFissures in the Human Liver,” Jour. Anat. and Phys., vol. xxxiii. p. 546, 1899.Google Scholar
(21)Cunningham, D. J., “On the Form of the Spleen and the Kidneys,” Jour. Anat. and Phys., vol. xxix. p. 501, 1895.Google Scholar
(22)Luschka, H., Die Anatomie des menschlichen Bauches, 1863.Google Scholar
(23)Symington, J., “On the Viscera of a Female Chimpanzee,” Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edin., 1888–90, p. 297.Google Scholar
(24)Parsons, F. G., “On the Notches and Fissures of the Spleen, and their Meaning,” Jour. Anat. and Phys., vol. xxxv. p. 416, 1901.Google Scholar
(25)Haberer, , “Lien succenturiatus und Lien aceessorius,” Arch. f. Ánat. u. Phys., Anat. Abth., 1901, p. 47.Google Scholar
(26)Fürst, T H., “Lappenbildung an der Milz eines Neugeborenen,” Anat. Anz., Bd. xxi. p. 491, 1902.Google Scholar
(27)Helly, K., “Zweigeteilte Milz mit Nebenmilzen,” Anat. Anz., Bd. xxiii. No. 8–9, p. 217, 1903.Google Scholar
(28)Albrecht, , “Ein Fall von sehr zahlreichen, über das ganze Peritonæum versprengten Nebenmilzen,” Beitr. z. path. Anat. u. all. Path., Bd. xx. p. 513, 1896.Google Scholar
(29)Gerlach, , Zeitseh.f. rat. Med., Bd. vi. p. 12, 1847.Google Scholar
(30)Berry, R. J. A., “The Anatomy of the Vermiform Appendix,” Anat. Am., Bd. x. p. 761, 1895.Google Scholar
(31)Noë, J., “Influence prépondérate de la Taille sur la Longueur de l'Intestin,” Compt. Rend. Soc. Biol. Paris, t. liv. p. 1489, 1902.Google Scholar
(32)Lapicque, L., “Sur la Relation entre la Longueur de l'lntestin et la Grandeur de l'Animal,” Compt. Rend. Soc. Biol. Paris, t. lv. No. 1, p. 29, 1903.Google Scholar
(33)Klaatsch, H., “Zur Morphologie der Mesenterialbildungen am Darmkanal der Wirbelthiere,” Morph. Jahrb., Bd.. xviii. p. 385 and p. 609, 1892.Google Scholar