Contributions to Anatomy and Physiology. By W. R. Handy,
M. D., Baltimore.
To the Editor of the Medical Examiner.
I take the liberty of sending you an account of a muscle, which,
so far as my dissections extend, and an examination of such
anatomical works, as in my opinion are entitled to credit, is
entirely new.
I also send a wood-cut of the muscle, which was prepared for
the American Journal and Library of Dental Science—and which
was used by the same Journal, but owing to some typographical
awkwardness it seems that the lettering of the plate, and the
illustration, by no means correspond, and that several parts are
thus given with their wrong names. To correct this unfortunate
accident is one reason why I would beg an early insertion in your
journal, should you deem the same worthy of notice.
From the attachments and functions of the muscle I have
thought proper to give it, as not inappropriate, the name of Exten-
sor accessorius indicis.
It had its origin on the right hand, by a delicate tendinous
membrane, from the radio-carpal-articulation, behind the posterior
annular ligament, and in the same groove with, and posterior to
the tendons of th^ extensor communis and indicator, forming
a fleshy bulb nearly the size of the plantaris of the leg. It
soon, however, divided into two bellies—the one short and
attached or inserted by a delicate tendon into the tendon of the
indicator, near the base of the metacarpal bone of the forefinger.
The other larger, and connected also to the tendon of the
indicator, but near the articulation of the metacarpal bone with
the first phalanx of the forefinger, and by a narrow tendon, also,
as seen in the drawing.
On the left hand, the muscle had but one belly, which ended
in a tendon having a similar attachment and resemblance to
the larger belly upon the right.
Its function seen.s evidently to assist the indicator in the exten-
ion of the forefinger.
Remarks.—This muscle was seen upon a colored woman in the
dissecting room of the Baltimore College of Dental Surgery last
winter. I find that Dr. Horner, in the last edition of his Anatomy,
states that the indicator muscle “is subject to many modifications;”
that it is sometimes digastric, and sometimes double, in which latter
case the second head goes to the middle finger. The American
editor of the Dublin Dissector makes a similar remark. But a
reference to the drawing clearly shows that it cannot be brought
under either of these modifications of the indicator.*
* We have much pleasure in publishing the communication of Dr. Handy
(which has already appeared in the Boston Med. and Surg. Journ., and the
Amer. Jour, and Library of Dental Science,) for the purpose of enabling him to
make the desired corrections. In one instance, however, since we have been
connected with the editorial department of the Examiner, an article was sent
simultaneously to two journals, (our own being one of them,) without any
intimation of the fact being given to us. This we are entirely willing to
believe was the result of a want of the “savoir faire” in such matters. But
it is generally regarded as a want of cando'r on the part of the contributor,
and as evincing a desire rather to publish his own name than to advance the
cause of science. It is usuallv conceded to an editor that he shall be the
I also send you an account of an exceedingly curious transposi-
tion of parts on the inferior surface of a liver taken from one of
the subjects this winter, in the dissecting room of the Baltimore
College of Dental Surgery. It was submitted to the examination
of Professors Roby andMiltenberger, of the University of Maryland.
Should you deem the description of sufficient interest to your
readers, it is at your disposal.
I am sorry to say that I did not witness the removal of this
liver, and therefore did not see it in its natural situation ; and
cannot hence state with positive certainty which of the edges of
the liver presented front and towards the ribs—a fact of some
interest, and in reference to which, I have to regret my not being
able to procure any information from those who removed it.
If where the umbilical vein or cord enters be taken as the
anterior edge of the liver, in accordance with the usual anatomical
descriptions, then the state of things is as follows, viz :
1.	The thickest edge, with its round and smooth surface, which
is always described as posterior, is now found in front, while the
anterior sharp edge is placed behind.
2.	The right lobe is much the smallest, and about the size of
what the left usually is, while the left takes the usual size of the
right.
3.	The Lobulus Spigelii is in front, instead of behind the trans-
verse fissure, and situated on the left, instead of the right lobe.
4.	The Inferior vena cava also was in front of the liver, (instead
of its back part,) and on the left instead of the right lobe.
If, on the other hand, the thick and round edge of the liver,
together with the usual situation of the Lobulus Spigelii and
ascending cava, be taken as the posterior edge, then the situation
of parts is as follows, viz :
1.	Gall bladder on the posterior edge of the left lobe, instead of
anterior and inferior surface of the right.
2.	Umbilical cord entering the centre of the posterior edge, in-
stead of the fissure on the anterior edge.
judge as to whether an article has sufficient merit to warrant its appearance
in more than one journal at the same time.
These remarks are not all intended to apply to the author of the above
article, who has very candidly stated his reasons for wishing his communica-
tion to appear in our pages after their publication in others, but to those who
through ignorance in such matters, might, under similar circumstances) feel
offended at the non-appearance of their contributions.—Ed. Examiner.
3.	Lobulus Spigelii passes over the transverse fissure, to the
left lobe, making an arch of about an inch in breadth.
Yours respectfully,
W. R. Handy.
Baltimore, March 7 th, 1850.