On some points relating to the anatomy and habits of the Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus), and on the presence of intestinal glands not before noticed / by Edwards Crisp.

  • Crisp, Edwards, 1806-1882.
Date:
[1865]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On some points relating to the anatomy and habits of the Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus), and on the presence of intestinal glands not before noticed / by Edwards Crisp. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    8/10 (page 294)
    longitudinal ridges, as in the Giraffe; but these were of small size and not so well defined. Skeleton.—The skeleton of the Bactrian Camel, so-called, is de- scribed by Professor Owen in the Museum Catalogue of the College of Surgeons ; and I need not occupy much time in noticing this part of the structure of the animal, although there are some points, I think, of great interest connected with it. I have carefully examined two skeletons of the Camel—one a Bactrian, at the British Museum, and the skeleton above alluded to, at the College of Surgeons; and, although they are said to be of the same species, I find a great dif- ference iu the length of many of the bones, but there is no important difference in the form : the skeletons are both those of old animals. In the British Museum specimen I find the united length of the spinous processes of the dorsal vertebrae to be 110 inches, while those of the College specimen are only 92 inches; and so with the bones of the extremities. These differences in the length of the bones may arise from a difference of sex only, as I believe the skeleton at the College of Surgeons is that of a female. I took drawings and mea- surements of the bones of both the skeletons I have named, believ- ing, at the time, that one was a Bactrian Camel and the other a Dromedary (the one-humped); but it is probable that these are both the skeletons of the former animal. Professor De Blainville, in his ‘ Osteographie,’ p. 76, says, after examining the skeletons of the two species, “ Quant aux autres parties du squelette, il m’a ete impossible d’y trouver la moindre particuliarite differentielle autre que celles qui peuvent etre considerees comme individuelles, et que l’iconographie la plus rigoureuse pourrait a peine signaler” (p. 86). Mr. Flower tells me that he has seen the two skeletons together at Leyden, and that he observed a marked difference in the spinal column. It will be interesting hereafter to have this matter more definitely settled. De Blainville’s comparison was made between one skeleton of the Dromedary and five of the Camel. The deviations in the skeletons of the Camelidce from the rumi- nant type, such as the three canine-like teeth in each jaw, the want of perforation of the transverse processes of the cervical vertebra for the vertebral artery, the form of the spine of the scapula, the pecu- liarities in some of the tarsal and carpal bones, and the more flattened form of the feet, have been pointed out in the Hunterian Catalogue, and by various writers on the subject; but there are some peculiarities in the skeleton of this animal that have not, I think, received sutfi- cient notice. In my examination of the bones of the male Bactrian Camel at the British Museum, I was struck especially with their great weight and solidity; and I believe, judging from the exami- nation of the bones of nearly all our well-known large quadrupeds, that there is no animal with bones so weighty in proportion to their bulk as those of the Camel. I find that the skull of the Ox is much larger than that of the Camel, but the skull of the Camel is the heavier of the two; and the same remark applies to the Horse’s skull, where, taking proportion into account, the weight of the Camel’s skull greatly preponderates. In two Camels’ skulls that I weighed, [8]