close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

The homologies of the arm and leg.

код для вставкиСкачать
THK HOMOLOGIES OF THE ARM AND liEG
51.
R. DRENKAN
Tfie Anntom!j Dcpartmmt of the lJnicrr8ity of Capetoirn
EIGHT FIGURF,S
The general morphological resemblaiice between the arm
and leg is obvious, but wheii attempts are made to draw a
detailed comparison between them there is great divcrsitj- of
opinion as t o what are corresponding structures. This is not
t o be wondered at, seeing that anatomists are iiot agreed as
t o the basis 011 which the comparison must be made. Ilorcover, the modifications in each limb, adaptiiig it to its special
function, have considerably blurred the resemblance between
them. Especially is this tlie case in the liumaii arm arid leg,
so that a comparison between these is particularly difficult,
yet it is largely from a study of their affinities that deductions have been drawn and applied to other vertebrates. I t
is important, therefore, on this account that anatomists
should t r y to reach some agreement a s to tlie nature of the
relationship which exists between the arm and leg. Uiitil this
is done, it seems idle to go into very great detail in the comparison, and there is a dangcr. of attemptiiig t o establish
homologies where none exist.
SEBIAL IIOMOLOGY
The orthodox view on this matter, for which Flower( 1),
Huxley( 2), aiid others, are largelj- responsible, is that the
arm arid leg a r e serial1;v homologous, and it is comparisons
made on this interpretation, which a r e incorporated in the
various text-books, which allude to this subject. In demonstrating this method of comparing the limbs it is usual t o
113
Tllh A I A T O N I C A L I<ECOKD, \ O L .
.js. NO.
2
114
M. R. DREXXAN
extericl them at riglit angles to the axis of the body in a position as similar a s possible to that occupied by them in the
primitive and embryonic condition. That is to say, the
borders containing the thumh and big toes are directed
toward the head, while the other borders are directed
caudally. At the same time the extensor groups of muscles
in each liml) look dorsally, while the flexor groups look
vent rally.
The cranial border of each limb is called tlie greaxial
border, and the caudal border is called the postaxial borcler.
these terms tieing used in reference to the axes of the 1iml)s
themselves. The flexor muscles are referred to by some
authors as preaxial and the extensors as postaxial in ref
erence to the axis of the trunk, hut in this paper these terms
will not be used in this latter, but always iii tlie former sense'.
According to this serial view of the relationship between
tlie limbs, structures situated on the preaxial border of one
limh are considered to be homologons to structures on flit.
preaxial border of the otlier limb, arid so for the postaxial
borders. That is to say, the arm is regarded as the exact
morpholog<cal counterpart or cast of the leg of the same side,
a i d both limbs from the same side of the body coiild he fittwt
into the same type of mold (fig. 1).
SYMMETRICAL HOMOLOGY
Another view, which is lieltl by a small minority of anato
mists, notably Humphrey(3), Parsoiis(4), Geddcs(S), wild
Keith( G ) , but u-hicall has found little support in the text-books,
is that the arm is symmetrically liomologons to the leg.
According to this view, there is a relationship between the
arm and leg of the same nature a s exists between a riglit
limh and a left limb. That is to say that, just as there is a
hilateral symmetry iii tlie body manifcsting itself hy each
limb being the mirror image of its fellow, so there is a craniocaudal or hiterminal symmetry which is espressetl i i i a
mii*rorimage or symmctrical homology hctweeii tlic forelimh
and the liincllimb on each side.
115
HOMOLOGIES OF T H E A R M A N D LEG
Viewed in this light, the preaxial border of the arm must
be homologized with the postaxial border of the leg. Accordingly, Geddes has designated these borders as being apomphalic, or distal to the umbilicus, while he refers to the other
two comparable borders of the limbs as paromphalic (figs.
1 and 2).
Fossa.
Do rsurn
Scapulae.
PRE-AxIAI;
(Apomphalic)
f-
p
S ub 8 cnpul.ar
T r o chant e r
-
---medial
;
j
!
Ulna.
(Paromphalic)
+
BORDER.
BORDER.
Radius.
k
I
11
i
Pig. 1 Diagrammatic representation of the bones of the arni and leg to show
homologous parts.
Fig. 2 Dingrain showing the hiterminal syinmetrp between the arm and leg
of a primate.
116
M. R. DKENNAN
DISC~TSSIONOF ‘rij E TWO HOMOT~OGIES
The author of the present paper is unable to accept the
theory of serial homology as usually applied to tlie limbs,
a i d he advocates thc substitution of the theory of symmetri(*ti1homology f o r this scrial interpretation iii any comparison
which is instituted. Wit11 this object in view, ail adrersc
witicism of the serial theory is submitted, and a detailed
comparison is made between the arm and leg on a symmetrical basis. Previous writers have only adumbrated this view,
or they liave applied it merely to oiic part of the limbs. 111
t h e present paper the full implications of comparing tlic arm
and leg on this interpretation are worked out. The results
show clearly that a morphological symmetry exists arid tliat
it must be regarded as a very important factor in any cwmparative study of the forelimb arid tlie hindlimb.
Before dealing with tliis latter rdationship, it is iiecessarv
to refer briefly to some of tlie ur1satisfactor:- features of the
serial theory. The foundation of this interpretation of thc
homology of ilie limbs is the assumption that, because of their
geiitwd resemblance, the thumb tiiitl the big toe are liomologous. This eorrespoiitlence is usually taken for graiitcd, lmt
it will hc shcrwii later that tlir* homolog-,.yof the pollcs and
hallux is not only not beyond all doubt, as Huxley thought,
but that it is e1-w highly problematical. Starting from this
supposed 21omology of the thumb ant3 big toe, it is asserted
that strnctui*cs0 1 1 the thumb ( p i w s i a l ) hortler of the arm are
morpliologically rcIated to striic.tures 011 the big toe (preaxial) loorder of thcl leg. The following are some of the
unsatisfactory ons sequences of the applicatioll of this dehatable criterion of comparison.
‘rhus it postnlatcs that the veil t ral su1)scapular fossa, with
its one muscle lying iii front of tlic long liead of tllc triceps,
is homologons to the dorsal surface of the ilium, with its
several muscles lying behiiid tlic loiig head of the quadriceps
(rectus femoris). The greater tuberclc of the humerus, \l?ith
its threr miiscle attacliments, is homologized to tlre lesser
t~ocliantcr of tlie femur with its siiigle t e i i d o ~attiichmerlt.
~
HOMOLOGIES OF THE ARM A N D LEG
lli
The i~ndoul~tedly
homologous triceps and quadriceps muscales
go to bones which are not homologous on the serial interpretation, namely, to the ulna and the tibia, respectively. The
biceps muscles are inserted into the radius and the fibula,
respectively, yet these are not regarded as homologous bones.
The medial epicoiidyle of the humerus, from which the flexor
group of muscles arises, is likened to the lateral epicondyle
of the femur, from which the extensors arise in most animals.
The flexor pollicis longus arises from the radius, whereas the
flexor hallucis longus arises from the fibula, yet these are
non-homologous bones, according to the serial interpretation.
It is customary to adduce different functional requirements
as the explanation of all tliese and other anomalies in the
structural correspondence. At the same time numerous
rotations and tortions, some ingenious and others clumsy,
have been postulated to accoiint for the discrepancies in tlie
comparison, but riot one of these seems to be an adequate
explanation. Again the well-known plasticity of muscles arid
their capacity for migration has been a convenient method
of explaining the wholesale ‘migrations ’ indicated above.
Further, there is no end to the chaos which may be introduced
by this theory, because of the difficulty of knowing in each
anomalous instance cited whether it is the arm or the leg
which has remained true to type or has become modified.
That is to say, it is difficult t o decide, for example, whether it
is the tubercles of the humerus or the trochanters of the
femur which have become reversed from the fundamental
plan.
Nothing in the above criticism of the unsatisfactory and
unacceptable results from a serial comparison o r of the
explanations of its modification, which are usually adduced,
is to be taken as in any way indicating that the author does
not accept the well-known and simple rotations by means of
which tlie embryonic limbs gradually assume tlie foetal and
adult positions. These changes in position are generally
accepted, but they do not account for any of the above discrepancies.
In seeking for a true standard of comparison between the
limbs, one is struck by the fact that when a preaxial structure
iii one limb does not resemble in form a corresponding preaxial structure in the other limb it does resemble the postaxial structure in that limb. This suggests the possibility of
an exactly opposite relationship being the fundamental one
or a t least tlie chief modifying factor in the morphology of
the limbs. According to this view, which has been alreadv
alluded to a s a biterminal symmetrical homology, preaxial
( apomphalic) structures in one limb correspond to postaxial
(apomphalic) structures in the other limb.
Bilateral symmetry is the modification which nature has
adopted to enable the right and left limbs to take an equal
share in halancing the body weight around the center of
gravity. It would be very surprising if there was not something analogous in the relationship between the forelimb and
the hindlimb of each side to enable them to support each end
of the body and thus complete the balance rouiid the center
of gravity (fig,2 ) . If this reason for a hiterminal symmetry
exists in quadrupeds, and it should be noted here that the
possession of just four limbs is a fundamental characteristic
of the vertebrates, there is no reason to doubt its applicability
t o a comparison of the human limbs.
If this conception is applied to a study of the arm and leg,
the first and most striking result is to get rid of practically
d l the difficulties encountered in applying the serial cornparison. Figure 3 shows tlie bony parts in the region of the left
shoiildcr compared with the corresponding parts in the left
pelvic girdle. No less striking is the likeness presented by
the left shoulder muscles to the left pelvic muscles in figure
4. in figure 5 the similarity between the triceps and the
quadriceps is obvious, and they are inserted into bones which
on a symmetrical basis a r e homologous. The long head of
the biccps femoris corresponds to tlic short head of the biceps
brachii. The short head of the biceps femoris is represented
I)y the occasional third head of the biccps brachii. The biceps
muscles arc inserted into the radins and the fibula, rcspec-
HOMOLOGlES OF THE ARM AND LEG
119
tively, in the arm and leg, and these arc symmetrically
homologous bones.
As we proceed toward the distal extremity of each limb, the
symmetry becomes more blurred. This is largely because,
Femoral Artery
Fig. 3 Corrcspoiitling parts a, b, e, ctc., in the left shoulder and pelvic yegions.
Fig. 4 Corresponding museles in the left shoulder and pelvic regions.
according to this basis of comparison, the thumb has to be
homologized with the little toe, and the little finger with the
big toe. At first sight, this appears to be a difficult homology
t o sustain, but in reality a comparison of the forearm and
120
M. H. DBENNAN
harid iii one lirnl) with tlic leg ant1 foot in the other limh is
more harmonious on this interpretation than on the serial
one. Most attempts to homologize the limbs on eveii a serial
hasis have broken down in the muscles of these regions. I t
is riecessary to concede, liowcve1*, that there is a greater
apparent rcsembliincc hetweeii tlic thuml) and the big toe tliaii
lwtween the thumb and the little toe, but this can be accouiiteci
for by regarding it as a secondary morlificatioii of a fullctiorlid
riaturcl. Iri Gctldes’(5) opinioiithe evidence available from the nervous system goes to show that
secondarily, that is subsequent to the estahlishintbiit of the doriiiiiaiiee
of the segmented ceplialisetl part of the body, when the linibs are
required to hinction as part of a n miirrial with a definite head and
tail. the great toe approxiiiiates in type to the thumb, taking o v t ~
from the thnmb’s real hornologne, the little toe, a sufficiency of its
n t w e supply and of its musculature fully t o equip it for its n w
pohition (cf. aponiphalic, fibular. origin of flexor hallticis loiigiis ) .
In other words, the correspontlence betmeeri the thmnb and gwat tor
i.; a11etsaniple of heterogeneons homoplasy.
rl?liwe is 110 evidence of this c+eplialization of the liaiitl ant1
foot having affected the preaxial borders of the limbs more
proximally, as is assumed by tlie theory of serial homology.
Even i n tlie l i a d a i d foot this cephalization is hy no meails
;i constant feature of tlie vertebrate orgaiiization.
I n the
vory large group of animals iii which cw-tain of the digits
h a w been sacrificed f o r functional purposes, it is usually the
pollex and the hallux which a r e the first to go, showing that
arc! the least stable of all the digits, and therefore the
lwst rc1ial)le of all the digits a s a founrlatioii for it morphology applicable to tlic rest of the limb.
Kor is there ally evidence that in the origin and develop
a i d ontogcriy) of the limbs there is aiiy
mciit (pli~-logc11~7
tlcfinite serial modification. The ai-m a i d leg h d s have ti
very similar origin in the embryo in close relationship to a
definite but different number of segments in each case, but
it is still a matter of dispute as to how far, if at all, tlic
somitcs enter into tlie early coiistitutioii of the limbs, so that
HOMOLOGIES OF T H E ARM AN11 LEG
121
arguments hasctl on the origin and early development of the
limbs are of t~ouhtfnlvalue at the present juncture. ('ertainly, so f a r as our present knowledge goes, there is no
reason to regard tlie preaxial part of the one limb bud as
corresponding more to the preaxial than to the postaxial part
of the other limb bud, except as regards situation and the
later thumb and big-toe modification. I n this connection
Geddes(5) has, in fact, advanced a theory as regards the
origin of the limbs, which considers them to be symmetrical
ab initio.
A case can therefore be made out for attempting to unravel
the symmetry between the forearm and leg and between the
hand and foot on a morphological basis. In order to simplif5the comparison, the left arm has been auperimposed on the
right leg in figure 8. The left arm, being the mirror image of
the left leg, must therefore be a n exact morphological cop:- of
the right leg, if the basis of comparison is correct.
The correspondence between the shoulder and the pelvis
aiid between the hracliium and the thigh is again ohvious.
The olecranon epiphysis corresponds to the patella. The
posterior border of the ulna corresponds to the anterior
border of the tibia. The extensor carpi ulnslris corresponds
to the tihialis anterior. They arise from symmetrically
homologous bones, and they have this also in common in their
insertions, that they both reach symmetrically homologous
bones, the former the fifth metacarpal an(! the latter the first
metatarsal. The extensor yuinti digiti proprius, being in
any case most probably a member of the deeper stratum of
the primitive extensor tendons, is homologous to the deep
extensor brevis hallucis. The tendon of the extensor digitorum communis, which goes to the little finger, corresponds
to the extensor hallucis longus. The three remaining tendons
of the extensor digitorum communis together with the extensor pollicis longus may be homologized with the extensor
digitorum longus. The exteiisor indicis proprius corresponds
to the most lateral tendon of the extensor digitorurn brevis
on the foot. The tendons of this latter muscle which go to tlie
122
M. R. DRENNAN
second and third toes a r e unrepresented in the hand, unless
c~oi.rcsr)(~~i(lin~
short ex tensors to tli e medius and annu1ai.is
digits happen to be present a s abnormalities, as is frequently
t h e case. The extensor pollicis lnrevis ant1 the abductor
pollicis loiigus, which are usually united into one muscle in
forms lower than man, can he suitably homologized by the
peroneus tertius alone or with the addition of the occasional
peroneus quintns. The extensor carpi radialis brevis and the
extensor carpi radialis longus are well represented by tlie
peroneus brevis and tlie peroneus longus, respectively. The
crossing of the sole by the peroneus longus tendon is merely
another example of the way in which the big toe, being short
of muscles of its own, has borrowed from the rich supply of
muscles of the little toe. Until the phylogeny of each individual muscle is completely worked out, it is impossihle to
maintain that the homologies stated are individually correct,
hut they are sufficiently accurate to show that the little toe
with its rich group of peroiisal muscles is more comparable
to the thumb aiid the numerous muscles related to it than is
the big toe (fig 6).
On the flexor aspect of the limbs the flexor carpi ulnaris
is homologous t o the tibialis posterior.
The V-shaped
arrangement of muscles formed on each side of the biceps
hrnchii by the brachioradialis laterally a d the pronator teres
and the flexor carpi radialis medially can be homologized to
the lateral mid medial heads of the gastrocnemius. The
palmaris longus is best represented by the plantaris. The
flexor digitorum sublimis is homologous to the soleus togethcr
with the flexor digitorurn brevis, although the tendon to the
thumb has become lost in the arm and the tendon to the big
toe in the foot. The flexor digitorurn profundus and the flexor
pollicis longus together correspond to the flexor digitorum
longus, the flexor hallucis longus, and tlie accessorius. This
was originally oiie continuous sheet in each limb, but it has
hwomc broken up differently in each case to serve a different
purpose. hforphologically, how-ever, it is easy to compare
the most fibular with the most radiaI tendon, however little
tlie former ma? be differentiated a s compared with the latter.
HOMOLOGIES O F THE ARM A N D LEG
123
UU
5 4 . "
3
2
7
Fig. 6 Corresponding parts in the left arm and thigh regions.
Fig. 6 Corresponding parts in the lrft liand a n d foot regions.
Fig. 7 (a) Arrangement of the bones in a primitive unmodified hand or foot.
(1)) Arrangement o f niuscles in thr hand or foot of an ape. Arrows indicatc
their position in the human hand and foot. (Modified after Keith.)
124
M. R. DRENNAK
Tlic morphology of the hand and foot is a very large sub
ject, hut for the present argument a very few facts mill suffice).
In tlie most primitive and unmotlified types of hand ant1 foot,
met with in certain reptiles arid amphibians, the various
skeletl-ll ant1 muscular elements are alike in numlwr aiitl
( a ) represents such a
arrangement in each case. Figure ‘i
hand or foot, and it is equally notcworthy lhat in each of such
hatids and feet there is very little specialization of the polles
and hallux. Each manus ant3 pcs is practically symmc~trival
round its central digit, so that in such forms the thnml) is
readily comparable to the little toe.
Jfoceover, Keith (6) has shown that the muscles of tlic
haiitl and foot of the ape arc arimiged identically (fig. 7 (1)) ).
Tho arrows show that the muscles have migrated in a similar
mimner to form the human liand aid foot, and that it is only
a slightJ diffcrence iii the form of the muscle and a cliaiige of
1I ii 111 wliich c onst it u t es tli e di tlt’cir cnc e 1 t ween the 11arid ai I ( I
tlw foot. A g1,znce at this figure and siiriilar reasoning will
sliow how it is possible for oiie to maintain that the muscles
011 tlic lateral side of the hand are homologous to those
011 tlic lateral side of the foot in spite of their apparent difference in form, for they are morphologically identical i l l
arimigemeiit .
Tlic reduction in iiumher of the phalaiiges of the pollex
aiul liallux and the aiiomaloiis ossificatim of the first metwcarpal arid tlie first metatarsal bones do not present anp
insuperable tli&culty to tlie theory of symmetrical homology.
Abnormal liuman thumbs with three phalanges and little tocs
with only two a r e sufficiently common abnormalities to show
that the thumb is a n ordinary and an unstable digit and that
reduction in the number of the phalanges can readily take
place. McOregor(7), in a recent paper on the morphology of
the thumb, has come to the conclusion that the anomalous
ossification of the first metacarpal and of the first metatarsal
is a functional adaptation and can be adequately explained
on mechanical grounds.
(1
HOXOLOGTES O F THE ARM A N D LEG
125
.Adductor Magnus
~
-0leeranon epiphysis
= Patella
-Posterior border of
Ulna
:Anterior border of
Tibia
~ l e x o rcarpi LLInaris
Tibialis p o g t e r i o s
Quint i Di i t i
Halluc is L i D
finger
Fig. 8 Diagmm showing how the muscles of the left arm correspond exactly
t o those of the right leg.
126
M. R. DRENNAN
As regards the boiies of tlie foot, therefore, we must
homologize the navicular with the calcaneus, tlie lunate with
the talus, the triyuetrum with the navicular, the greater
multangular with the cuboid, the lesser multangular with the
third cuneiform, the capitate with the second cuneiform, aiid
tlie hamate with the first cuneiform, while the first, second,
third, fourth, and fifth metacarpal bones and accompaiiying
plialangcs must correspond t o the fifth, fourth, third, second,
and first metatarsal bones and accompanying phalanges,
respectively.
Arteries are regarded as too variable morpliologically t o
be of much value as standards of comparison. According to
thra serial homologists, the 1)rachial artery is homologous t o
the inferior gluteal artcrp, the uliiar is represented hy the
posterior tibial artery, and the radial by the iiiterrial
saphenous artery. On a symmetrical interpretation the
hrachial artery becomes readily comparable with the femoral
and its continuation the popliteal artery. The uliiar coi*responds t o the posterior tibial artery, the radial artery to
the peroneal, and the posterior interosseous artery to tlic
iuitcriur tibial artery. Altogether, tlie comparison o i l tlic
symmetrical basis is much more harmonious than on ttic
serial hypothesis.
As regards using the spinal nerves as keys to homologies
or as standards of comparison, it is only necessary to point
out how they have failed as such in the serial comparison.
Homologous fibers take a totally different course in the two
limbs. The segmental distribution of the cutaneous iiervw
is as favorable to a symmetrical a s to a serial view of the
morphology of the limbs ; according to the former view,
apomphalic areas in one limb correspond to apomphalic areas
in the other limb, whereas the latter view makes preaxial
areas in one limb correspond to preaxial areas in the other
limb.
In the case of the motor nerves, Geddes(5) adduces cxperimental evidence in support of the law “that of two limb
muscles that which is the more superficial is usually supplied
HOMOLOGIES OF THE ARM A N D LEG
12’1
by a nerve apomphalic to that which supplies the deeper
muscle.” The usual statement in the text-books, that the
fifth cervical nerve supplies the abductors and the lateral
rotators of the arm, and the flexors and the supinators of the
forearm, that the sixth cervical nerve supplies the opponents
of these, that the seventh cervical nerve supplies the flexors
and the extensors of the wrist, that the eighth cervical nerve
supplies the flexors and extensors of the fingers, and that
the first thoracic nerve supplies all the short muscles of the
hand, would seem to indicate that the craniocaudal series of
nerves find their expression on the limb morphology not in
any preaxial and postaxial modification, but on the very
characteristic proximodistal segmentation of each limb.
SUMMARY
1. Tliere is no evidence of a general serial modification of
the arm and leg, such as is usually described as being present.
The ccphalization of the thumb and big toe is probably a
secondary modification of a functional character, which is
not universally present in all forms and which does not dominate the general morphology of the rest of the limbs, as it is
usually supposed to do.
2. On the other hand, there are many facts which support
the view that the limbs have been modified according to a
craniocaudal or biterminal symmetrical plan. This may also
he part of the fundamental plan of organization of the
limbs, and in any case it must always be taken into consideration in making any comparison between them.
3. The segmental homology between the proximodistal
segments of the arm and leg is the most definite existing
homology, and it is suggested tentatively that this proximodistal segmentation, and not any preaxial and postaxial modification, is the expression of the genetic relationship of the
limbs possibly to a series of somites arid certainly to a series
of segmental nerves.
4. The arm and leg thus present a segmental homology,
hut the elements in each segment are mirror images of each
128
M. R. DBBKNAN
other, so that there is also a symmetrical homology. This
symmetry is blnrrecl distally by tlic ccphalizatioii of thc 2iaiitl
and foot to form the thumb and big toe-an
example of
heterogeneous homoplasy.
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
0
Размер файла
770 Кб
Теги
arm, homologies, leg
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа