The emergence of modern muscle names: the contribution to the foundation of systematic terminology of Vesalius, Sylvius, and Bauhin.

Although its history is complicated, today's anatomical nomenclature, including muscle terminology, has acquired a system of naming using epithets. The objective of this literary research paper was to ascertain the founder of modern muscle terminology. The texts of four anatomists, Galen, Andreas Vesalius, Jacobus Sylvius, and Gaspard Bauhin, who have all been identified as being influential in the establishment of early modern anatomy and its nomenclature, were analyzed. Particular emphasis was given to the naming method, and to the consistency of that method. The analysis shows that each of these four anatomists had a different conception of muscle naming, and that three early modern anatomists, Vesalius, Sylvius, and Bauhin, contributed to the development of modern muscle terminology. This investigation revealed the types of contributions they made: Vesalius was an originator of rule-governed muscle terminology with a univocal naming method, Sylvius was an inventor of epithet naming, and Bauhin applied Sylvius's epithet naming method to Vesalius's concept of rule-governed terminology with a univocal naming method.

[Nicolaus Steno's geometrical description of muscle: the investigation of muscle movements in the 17th century].

Famous geologist Nicolaus Steno (1638-1686) was known as a skillful anatomist in his time. His main work about anatomy is "Elementorum myologiae specimen, seu musculi descriptio geometrica". Steno introduced geometrical representation into muscle study. His purpose was to handle muscle movements in the style of Cartesian mechanical philosophy, assuming muscle fibers as the structural and functional unit of muscle. Steno modelled muscles as parallelepiped integrations of fibers. Steno thought the shortening of muscle fibers modified parallelepiped integration and its modification resulted in muscle movements. His parallelepiped model enabled the regarding of muscles as objects of physics. Steno's assumption and model built a methodological foundation of mechanistic physiology of muscle, and influenced latter 17th century thinkers, especially Borelli.

[The alteration of Japanese anatomical terminology in the early Showa period and the Japanese language reform campaign].

In the second decade of the Showa period, great changes were made in the Japanese anatomical terms. It has been proposed that the presentation of JNA (Jenaer nomina anatomica) was one of the factors leading to the change. The Japanese language reform campaign, however, played an important role. The party kokugoaigo doumei and its successor kokugo kyokai required concise and unified technical terms. The anatomical nomenclature committee of the Japanese Association of Anatomists worked to satisfy this requirement. The committee consulted with nomenclature committees of other medical associations and took account of their opinions. The anatomical nomenclature committee abandoned the literal translation from Latin to Japanese and shaped a succinct Japanese terminology. Modern Japanese anatomical terms are based on this terminology.

[Study of Japanese anatomical terms, such as 'sphenoid bone'].

Japanese anatomical terms (butterfly-shaped bone) have an interesting history. Galen named a bone (wedge-like). This Greek term was introduced into Latin anatomical texts by transcribing into 'os sphnoides' or translating it as 'os cuneiforme'. Both terms mean equally wedge-like bone. From 16th century on, these two terms prevailed in European anatomical textbooks, but in 18th century some anatomists merged this bone with some kinds of winged creatures and named their wings "Ala major' and 'Ala minor'. In mid-19th century English-Chinese anatomical book, this bone was named (butterfly bone) by a medical missionary Benjamin Hobson. This term was introduced into Japanese textbooks. In Meiji Era both terms were used in Japanese textbooks, and (wedged-like bone). Some anatomists insisted on using because this echoed original Latin term's sense. Eventually, Japanese Associations of Anatomists adopted in 1943.

[Galen's "On bones for beginners" translation from the Greek text and discussion].

Galen's article "On bones for beginners" was translated literally from the Greek text (Kühn's edition, vol. 2, pp. 732-778) into Japanese, applying the knowledge of modern anatomy. The previous Latin and English translations were utilized as references for the present translation. The present study has revealed that many of the current basic vocabularies for the bones and junctions were established already in Galen's treatises, but have changed their meanings and usages considerably. It has become also apparent that, for the skull, Galen did not observe individual bones but distinguished them by precise observations on the sutures of the skull in monkeys. The precise understanding of Galenic anatomy provides essential information to understand the origin of current anatomy.

[Galen's "On the anatomy of veins and arteries" translation from the Greek text and discussion].

Galen's treatise "On the anatomy of veins and arteries" was translated literally from the Greek text (Kühn's edition, vol. 2, pp. 779-830) into Japanese, utilizing a knowledge of anatomy. The previous Latin and English translations, as well as the descriptions of the vascular system in the other Galenic texts such as "Anatomical Procedures" were utilized as references for the present translation. The present study has identified many branches of veins and arteries, and discussed the influence on anatomy until Vesalius. For example, Galen considered that the main trunk of the portal vein sent off 7 branches, and Avicenna's "Canon" and Mondino's "Anatomia" identified a trunk and 8 branches, whereas Vesalius found bifurcation of the portal vein as in the modern anatomy. As to the vein of the forearm, Galen found 3 superficial veins including the central largest one and Vesalius' "Tabulae anatomicae" depicted this arrangement of veins, whereas Vesalius' 'Fabrica" corrected this erroneous description, based on anatomical findings. The precise understanding of Galenic anatomy provides essential information to understand the developing process of Vesalius' anatomy.

[Laurentius on anatomy].

Andreas Laurentius wrote Opera anatomica (1593) and Historia anatomica (1600). These books were composed of two types of chapters; 'historia' and 'quaestio'. His description is not original, but take from other anatomists. 'Historia' describes the structure, action and usefulness of the body parts clarified after dissection. 'Quaestio' treats those questions which could not be solved only by dissection. Laurentius cited many previous contradicting interpretations to these questions and choose a best interpretation for the individual questions. In most cases, Laurentius preferred Galen's view. Historia anatomica retained almost all the 'historia' and 'quaestio' from Opera anatomica, and added some new 'historia' and 'quaestio', especially in regard to the components of the body, such as ligaments, membranes, vessels, nerves and glands. Other new 'historia' and 'quaestio' in Historia anatomica concerned several topics on anatomy in general to comprehensively analyze the history of anatomy, methods of anatomy, and usefulness of anatomy. Historia anatomica reviewed what was anatomy by describing in 'historia' what was known and in 'quaestio' what was unresolved. Till now Laurentius's anatomical works have attracted little attention because his description contained few original findings and depended on previous books. However, the important fact that Historia anatomica was very popular in the 17th century tells us that people needed non-original and handbook style of this textbook. Historia anatomica is important for further research on the propagation of anatomical knowledge from professional anatomists to non-professionals in the 17th century.