Note l — BOOK IV.

Although Dr. Drake and some others deny the Intercostals being Antagonist-Muscles, as in the preceding Note, yet they, and most other Anatomists that I have met with, attribute a considerable Power to them in the act of Respiration, as they do also to the Subclavian and Triangular Muscles: but the learned Etmuller denies it for these three Reasons, 1. Quia respirando nullam in illis contractionem sentio. 2. Quia——sibi invicem non adducuntur, &c. 3. Quia Costæ omnes ab aliis modò enarratis musculis moventur, idque simul, &c. Intercostales itaque, necnon Subclavios Musculos Costis, parietum instar, ad complenda interstitia intercostalia, pectusque integrandum, ac Costas connectendas, intertectos esse, probabiliter concludo; quo munere triangulares etiam——fungi, rationi consentaneum est. Etmul. Dissert. 2. cap. 4. §. 6.

But as to the Use of the Triangular Muscle in Respiration, we may judge of it, from its remarkable Size, and Use in a Dog; of which Dr. Willis gives this Account from Fallopius: In Homine parvus adeò & subtilis iste [Musculus] est, ut vix pro Musculo accipi queat: in Cane per totum os pectoris protenditur, & cartilagines omnes, etiam verarum Costarum sterno inosculatas, occupat: Cujus discriminis ratio divinam circa Animalium fabricas Providentiam planè indigitat. Quippe cùm hoc animal, ad cursus velocissimos & diu continuandos natum, quo sanguis, dum intensiùs agitatur, ritè accendatur eventileturque, aërem celerrimè & fortiter uti inspirare, ita etiam exspirare debet——idcirco propter hunc actum firmiùs obeundum (cujus in Homine haud magnus est usus) musculus caninas molem ingentem & tanto operi parem fortitur. Willis ubi supr. §. 32.