1. Introduction
The close phylogenetic relationship between the rhesus monkey (
Macaca mulatta) and humans (
Homo sapiens) is reflected in the high degree of anatomical and physiological similarities between these species [
1]. Colonies of feral rhesus monkeys inhabit the southern, southeastern, and central parts of Asia, but this Old World non-human primate (NHP) also lives in research facilities and zoos worldwide [
2,
3]. As the number one NHP species used in biomedical research, the rhesus monkey functions as an animal model for the unraveling of many human pathologies [
4]. The number of biomedical studies in which the rhesus monkey has played a pivotal role is countless [
5]. Yet, comprehensive publications on the anatomy of the rhesus monkey are sparse. Sound knowledge of the morphology of the rhesus monkey is, however, a prerequisite for the correct interpretation of research data and the accuracy of experimental procedures. For example, when the rhesus monkey foot (
pes) serves as a model for the human foot during the finetuning of surgical procedures, the foot anatomy of both species should be understood [
6]. In addition, anatomical expertise is essential for the medical treatment of diseased or wounded animals [
7]. The foot is an anatomically complex body part that is frequently exposed to mechanical forces. It is, therefore, often injured during certain physical activities. As a result, medical attention is frequently required. Finally, the appropriate housing and husbandry of the captive rhesus monkey rely on the comprehension of its anatomy [
8,
9].
With regard to reference works on the rhesus monkey anatomy, Hartman and Straus [
10], Szebenyi [
11], and Berringer et al. [
12] delivered excellent contributions in the years 1933, 1967, and 1974, respectively. However, these works also have their limitations. Since the atlases are at least 50 years old, no modern techniques or color photography (both macroscopic and stereomicroscopic) in casu were applied for the visualization of structures. The work by Hartman and Straus [
10] is a textbook with extended textual descriptions of various anatomical structures. Regrettably, the number of supporting illustrations is restricted. Indeed, the foot musculature is only visualized by the means of two illustrations, i.e., a figure of the superficial plantar muscles and one of the deeper plantar muscles. More muscle layers should be presented to allow for the textbook to be used as a dissection guide. Moreover, all illustrations consist of black-and-white line drawings that fail to reveal anatomical details. This sometimes results in doubtful identifications during dissections. On the other hand, the ‘idealization’ of dissected specimens that is offered by line drawings is preferred over black-and-white photographs.
Black-and-white photographs are displayed in the atlas by Berringer et al. [
12]. More specifically, seven images are shown, i.e., a lateral and medial view of the ankle, a superficial and deep dorsal view of the foot, and one superficial and two deeper plantar views of the foot. These images are accompanied by concise textual descriptions of the foot muscles. Although the dissections were meticulously performed by the authors, studying these black-and-white photographs is challenging, since the contrast between adjacent structures is low. In addition, the three-dimensional organization of overlying structures is difficult to interpret.
The Szebenyi atlas presents seven colored line drawings of the musculature of the rhesus monkey foot, i.e., two dorsal views and five plantar views [
11]. Therefore, it better fulfils its task in guiding the investigator through the dissection compared to the work by Hartman and Straus [
10]. In contrast to the latter work, a textual description of the muscles is absent. In this respect, the atlas by Berringer and colleagues [
12] is more valuable, as it finds a fair balance between text and figures. In addition to the lack of color photographs in these three works and the imbalance between the amount of text and the number of figures in the contributions by Hartman and Straus [
10] and Szebenyi [
11], these works do not consistently use contemporary veterinary nomenclature as officialized in the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria (N.A.V.) [
13].
Another interesting title for researchers working with rhesus monkeys was published in 1975 by Bourne [
8,
9]. This textbook presents, among other features, numerous data on the allometry of the organs and tissues, histology, management, reproduction, and pathology of the rhesus monkey. Gross anatomists interested in the rhesus monkey anatomy will not find it useful, since an elaboration of the rhesus monkey anatomy by the means of cadaver dissections is not included, despite the suggestion made by the title of the first volume [
8]. Also, the latest edition of the title “Primate Anatomy” by Ankel-Simons [
14] does not meet expectations when consulting the book in search for data on the rhesus monkey anatomy. It describes the anatomy of the rhesus monkey only fragmentarily. More precisely, the skull, the brain, the teeth, the postcranial skeleton, the viscera, the sense organs, and the reproductive organs are included. The muscular system is, unfortunately, not depicted. In contrast, the muscles of the rhesus monkey are portrayed in a contemporary book chapter by Casteleyn and Bakker [
15]. Although it shows many color photographs, the number of photographs of the foot is limited, since the book chapter only offers the essentials for biomedical researchers. A superficial and deeper dorsal view and a superficial and deeper plantar view are displayed. More details on the foot musculature of the rhesus monkey can be found in the recent manuscript entitled
Topographical anatomy of the rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta)—Part II: Pelvic limb [
16]. Here, the left lateral, the right lateral, the dorsal, and two plantar views, i.e., the superficial and the deeper layer of the plantar musculature, are shown.
The aim of the present work is to elaborate further on the foot musculature of the rhesus monkey. From a veterinary point of view, it is expected that the foot musculature in the rhesus monkey is more complex compared with that in the common domestic mammals that are included in the N.A.V. [
13], i.e., rabbit, cat, dog, pig, ox, sheep, goat, and horse. None of these species contain five functional digits on the hind foot. The small domestic mammals lack the first digit—a regressed hallux or dew claw (sometimes double or even triple) can be present in some dog breeds [
17]. The pig sees an additional reduction in the second and fifth digits, which only support the body in loose and muddy soil. These digits are further reduced in ruminants and are dysfunctional. In addition, the metatarsal bones III and IV are fused. Finally, the horse foot contains a single digit, i.e., digit III. Only reduced metatarsal bones remain from digits II and IV [
18]. When compared to humans, it is likely that the anatomy of the rhesus monkey foot is more complicated. In particular, the anatomy of the first digit (
digitus primus/I or
hallux) is strongly adapted to its role in locomotion and grasping [
19]. Adult rhesus monkeys present quadrupedal locomotion, both digitigrade and plantigrade, 70% of the time [
20], in contrast to the plantigrade bipedal human [
21]. This bipedality resulted in the loss of the grasping function of the human hallux during evolution. Moreover, the morphology of the human foot has undergone alterations that enhance propulsion during walking [
22]. Obviously, plantigrade locomotor behaviors require more stability in the foot, with a reduction in flexibility. The responsible anatomic changes show the trade-offs between flexibility and stability in the foot.
To gain insight into the musculature of the rhesus monkey foot, it was dissected layer-by-layer and color photographs of state-of-the-art anatomical dissections were taken as a tool for further investigations. In the discussion, we shed light on our results from a comparative point of view. The rhesus monkey foot was compared with the human foot and the hind foot of small domestic mammals. This will allow for the correct use of the data in translational research. The results can also be valuable in comparative studies among several NHP species. Finally, they may be consulted during the medical care of injured rhesus monkeys. Since this task is primarily delegated to veterinarians, who generally are not trained in primate anatomy during their studies, the present manuscript could play a role in their anatomical education. This manuscript provides an easily accessible source of contemporary anatomical data on the rhesus monkey anatomy, illustrated by the means of numerous color photographs, which can serve as a practical guide during dissections.
4. Discussion
Researchers and veterinarians who work with rhesus monkeys often request detailed anatomical data on this species. They are, unfortunately, confronted with the fact that there is currently no comprehensive atlas of rhesus monkey anatomy that is up-to-date both in terms of descriptions of musculoskeletal features and in terms of high-definition images. As a result, researchers with a background in human anatomy consult typical human resources such as the Sobotta Atlas of Human Anatomy [
21], whereas veterinarians largely rely on their knowledge of veterinary gross anatomy. However, because neither the typical human nor typical veterinary anatomy resources are fully transferable to the anatomy of the rhesus macaque, the present manuscript makes reference to both. Veterinary anatomical nomenclature was primarily used, with the N.A.V. utilized as a reference work. In addition, the typical human terminology that is frequently encountered in research articles with the rhesus monkey as a study subject is provided where appropriate. The present manuscript consequently enhances comparative anatomic study between domestic animals, humans, and rhesus monkeys. As such, it also bridges the gaps in both anatomic and surgical guides, which might alternatively be consulted for various aspects of clinical and surgical practice.
Using veterinary nomenclature to describe the anatomy of the rhesus monkey is challenging, since the N.A.V. does not apply to this species. The following underlined terms can be found in the publications on the anatomy of the rhesus monkey that were cited in the introduction, but not in the N.A.V. [
13]:
m. extensor digitorum et digiti primi/hallucis brevis,
m. plantaris,
m. fibularis digiti quinti,
m. abductor ossis metatarsi quinti,
m. flexor digiti quinti brevis,
mm. interossei pedis dorsales and
plantares, and finally,
mm. contrahentes digitorum pedis. It can be concluded from this enumeration that only a small number of muscles that are present in the rhesus monkey foot are not existent in any of the species included in the N.A.V. [
13]. These muscles are, thus, specific for the rhesus monkey. Since the N.A.V. only covers typical domestic animals and not the rhesus monkey, the number of muscles that they have in common is a prediction of the degree of the similarity of their foot musculature. In other words, it is likely that the musculature of the rhesus monkey foot largely resembles that of one of the species included in the N.A.V. It is evident that the rabbit and domestic carnivores, i.e., the dog and cat, with their four-digit hind feet, lean more directly towards the rhesus monkey. The largest distinction lies in the presence of the hallux in the rhesus monkey. Although domestic carnivores apparently lack the hallux, they present a reduced first metatarsal bone. In the dog, this rudimentary bone can be followed by phalanges [
23]. It is then called a dew claw, which exists in a few variations [
17]. On the other hand, the very reduced first metatarsal bone of the cat is never followed by phalanges [
23]. Moreover, the first metatarsal bone is completely absent in the rabbit [
23]. As a consequence, some of the muscles with action on the hallux of the rhesus monkey have analogues in the hind foot of the dog, and to a lesser extent in the cat. This allows for veterinarians to transfer their knowledge of the canine hind foot musculature with minimum effort to the rhesus monkey foot. This could be required when wounds need medical attention or surgery must be performed on the rhesus monkey foot. The present detailed anatomical study on the rhesus monkey foot will prove valuable, for small differences can lead to insecurity.
Discrepancies between the nomenclature used in the anatomical works on the rhesus monkey anatomy that were cited in the introduction are discussed. For example, the muscle designated by Hartman and Straus [
10] with the term
m. flexor digitorum tibialis is called the
m. flexor digitorum longus by Berringer et al. [
12]. None of these terms are listed in the N.A.V. [
13]. However, since the tibial side of the lower leg corresponds with the medial side, the term
m. flexor digitorum medialis, which is in the N.A.V. [
13], seems to be a valuable alternative. A comparable example includes the muscle that is named the
m. flexor digitorum fibularis by Hartman and Straus [
10]. Berringer et al. [
12] use the term
m. flexor hallucis longus. Again, these terms are not listed in the N.A.V. [
13], but since the fibular side of the lower leg corresponds with the lateral side, the term
m. flexor digitorum lateralis, which is in the N.A.V. [
13], could be preferred to avoid any misinterpretation. We included the various terms used in the descriptions of these muscles so that it is clear to any reader which specific muscle is being portrayed. To further complicate this matter, it could be mentioned here that the
m. flexor digitorum medialis and the
m. flexor digitorum lateralis form, together with the
m. tibialis caudalis, the deep digital flexor (
m. flexor digitorum profundus) in domestic mammals. In the rhesus monkey, however, the
m. flexor digitorum lateralis not only lies lateral to the
m. flexor digitorum medialis, as their names suggest, but also deeper to it. As a result, the medial and lateral digital flexor muscles could erroneously be labeled as the superficial digital flexor muscle (
m. flexor digitorum superficialis) and the deep digital flexor muscle, respectively.
In regard to the flexor digitorum fibularis/lateralis muscle, it could be questioned how accurate the term
m. flexor digiti primi/hallucis longus, used by Berringer et al. [
12], is. According to its name, this muscle flexes the first digit or hallux. Likewise, it is expected that a single tendon inserts into the hallux. In the rhesus monkey, however, this muscle initially shows a transition to a common tendon, from which a tendon to the hallux first branches off. The continuation of the common tendon more distally splits into two tendons that insert into the third and fourth digits. Therefore, this muscle is not uniquely responsible for the flexion of the hallux, but also for the flexion of the third and fourth digits. Since the term
m. flexor hallucis longus is misleading, the term
m. flexor digitorum lateralis should be preferred. The former term obviously derives from human anatomy. Indeed, in the human foot, the flexor hallucis longus muscle sends a single tendon to the hallux, rendering its name appropriate [
21].
A dissimilarity between the human and rhesus monkey foot was also noticed in the insertions of the flexor digitorum tibialis (medialis)/longus muscle. In the three specimens that were dissected during the present study, the common tendon of this muscle sent individual tendons to each of the five digits. However, according to Hartman and Straus [
10], a high degree of variability is present in the number and heaviness of individual tendons. In particular, the tendon to the third digit can be weak. Nevertheless, the human hallux is not provided by any tendon from the flexor digitorum tibialis (medialis)/longus muscle [
21]. This may not be surprising, since the human hallux is flexed by the flexor hallucis longus muscle, whose force uniquely acts upon the hallux. In the rhesus monkey, the analogous muscle (the flexor digitorum fibularis/lateralis muscle) is also activated to flex the third and fourth digits.
With respect to the foot, the following long muscles present diverse insertions when comparing the rhesus monkey with humans. The tibialis anterior muscle in humans usually has a single tendon that inserts into the medial cuneiform bone and the first metatarsal bone [
18,
21]. According to Hartman and Straus, the splitting of the tendon, or even the muscle belly, may occur [
10]. The tibial cranialis muscle of the rhesus monkey is always composed of a lateral and a medial belly, with the former inserting with a tendon into the medial cuneiform bone and the latter into the first metatarsal bone [
10]. The tendon of the human fibular longus muscle always terminates at the first metatarsal bone and generally has additional attachments to the medial cuneiform bone and the second metatarsal bone [
18]. In the rhesus monkey, the main insertion site is also the first metatarsal bone, but anatomists can incidentally be confronted with an additional tendinous attachment to the fifth metatarsal bone and perhaps also to the cuboid bone [
10]. The fibularis tertius muscle (
m. fibularis tertius) is, in contrast to humans, absent in the rhesus monkey [
10,
15,
16]. However, the fibularis tertius muscle in humans is very weak or can be absent. The muscle belly that finds its origin at the distal half of the fibula sends a tendon towards the head of the fifth metatarsal bone [
18,
21]. In domestic mammals, the fibularis tertius muscle presents a large degree of variation. It is absent in domestic carnivores and the rabbit. In contrast, this muscle is well developed and constant in ungulates [
18].
In regard to the intrinsic muscles of the foot, the quadratus plantae muscle is first discussed. The quadratus plantae muscle is double in humans. Here, this muscle, which is alternatively named the accessory part of the flexor digitorum longus muscle (
m. flexor accessorius), is composed of two parts [
18]. After the tendons of both parts have united, the common tendon inserts into the common and individual tendons of the flexor digitorum longus muscle to digits II to V [
18,
21]. This condition is slightly different in the foot of the rhesus monkey, in which the muscle fibers from the single muscle belly primarily attach to the individual tendon for digit V from the flexor digitorum tibialis (medialis)/longus muscle. Only smaller tendinous slips also attach to the individual tendons for digits II to V. In contrast to the well-developed quadratus plantae muscle in humans and the rhesus monkey, the dog merely presents with a very weak analogue. The diminutive muscle bundle lies between the common tendons of the superficial and deep digital flexor muscles and terminates at the latter by the means of a tiny tendon [
18].
The flexor digitorum brevis muscle is composed of only the superficial head in the human foot. It sends tendons to the middle phalanges of digits II to V [
21]. In the rhesus monkey, the second digit is provided by the single tendon of the superficial head of this muscle, while the deep head sends tendons to digits III to V. Interestingly, this muscle is vestigial or even absent in domestic mammals. Only in the dog can some muscle fibers representing the flexor digitorum brevis muscle be observed at the plantar aspect of the tendon of the superficial digital flexor muscle, more specifically at the level of the tarsometatarsal joint, where its common tendon splits into the four individual tendons for digits II to V [
18]. As already discussed, a true superficial digital flexor muscle is absent in the rhesus monkey.
The opposite situation, in which a muscle is embodied by two parts in the human foot and only one part in the rhesus monkey foot, is seen when studying the extensor digitorum et hallucis brevis muscle of the rhesus monkey. Although the term used to designate this muscle in this species signifies that a single muscle is responsible for the extension of all five digits, this assumption is not fully accurate. The three specimens that were dissected in the present study did not possess a muscle belly with a tendon for the fifth digit. According to Hartman and Straus [
10], such a condition is only occasionally encountered. In humans, the function of the extensor digitorum et hallucis brevis muscle is performed by the extensor digitorum brevis muscle (
m. extensor digitorum brevis) and the extensor hallucis brevis muscle (
m. extensor hallucis brevis). The former extends digits II, III, and IV, while the latter is responsible for the extension of the hallux [
21]. Like in humans, the extensor digitorum brevis muscle of domestic carnivores also extends digits II, III, and IV. Given the reduced nature of the hallux in these species, no extensor hallucis brevis muscle exists [
18].
In humans, no specific muscle for the second toe is present [
18]. The same is true for the rhesus monkey [
10,
11,
12]. In contrast, the terms
m. adductor digiti II and
m. abductor digiti II are listed in the N.A.V., meaning that these muscles can be observed in one or more domestic animal species [
13]. Indeed, the adductor digiti secundi muscle can be observed in the hind limbs of domestic carnivores, the rabbit, and the pig, in which it attaches to the head of the proximal phalanx of digit II. Due to its origin at the plantar tarsal ligament, this muscle is suited to adduct the second digit towards the midline of the foot. The abductor digiti secundi muscle is only present in the porcine hind limb. In fact, the adductor and abductor muscles of the second digit in the pig are portions of the interosseous muscle of that digit, but they can be identified as independent muscles. In humans and rhesus monkeys, they are completely included in the interosseous muscles.
In the human and rhesus monkey foot, both dorsal and plantar interosseous muscles are present. This contrasts with the situation in domestic mammals, in which only plantar interosseous muscles can be identified [
18]. Small differences can be observed when comparing the organization of the interosseous muscles between the human and rhesus monkey foot. The second dorsal interosseous muscle attaches to the second digit in humans, whereas this is the third digit in the rhesus monkey. The first plantar interosseous muscle inserts into the human third toe. In the rhesus monkey, however, the insertion site is the second digit. Based on the organization of the interosseous muscles, the axis of the rhesus monkey foot passes through the third digit. In humans, this axis shifts medially and, hence, passes through the second digit [
10]. Nevertheless, the axial and abaxial directions were used in the present study as terms to designate the sides of the digits, with reference to the functional longitudinal axis of the rhesus monkey foot passing between the third and fourth digits, as custom in domestic mammals other than the horse [
10].
Further elaborating the deep musculature of the rhesus monkey foot, it was demonstrated that four contrahentes muscles are present. Three are specified by the terms
m. contrahens digitorum pedis, i.e.,
m. contrahens digiti II/secundi pedis,
m. contrahens digiti IV/quarti pedis, and
m. contrahens digiti V/quinti pedis. The remaining is the adductor hallucis muscle, that is, the
m. contrahens digiti I/primi/hallucis. This original arrangement, which is also present in the rhesus monkey hand [
24], is gradually reduced from monkeys to human primates, with a complete disappearance in humans [
10].
The anatomic similarities of the rhesus monkey with domestic animals include the shared conservative traits of mammals. They reflect the preservation of synapomorphies despite the development of unique locomotor adaptations in these different species, as follows: digitigrade locomotion in domestic mammals compared to plantigrade weight-bearing and locomotor behaviors in primates [
20]. This degree of similarity is a manifestation of concurrent phylogeny and externalizes a comparable functional morphology. Human, canine, and rhesus monkey feet show a few remarkable differences. Some muscles are absent or present in one species and not another, or are differently arranged. The plantaris muscle is a prime example here. It is lacking in dogs, but shows a similar organization in rhesus monkey and human feet. In contrast, the contrahentes muscles are unique to the rhesus monkey and cannot be identified in canine and human feet. The fibularis tertius muscle is usually present in humans, but is absent in dogs and rhesus monkeys. The adductor digiti secundi muscle can be observed in the canine foot, while no specific muscles for the second digit develop in humans and rhesus monkeys. Fortunately, the observation that the musculature of the rhesus monkey foot shows much resemblance with both the hind foot of domestic carnivores and the human foot allows the veterinarian responsible for the daily care of captive rhesus monkeys to easily transfer their knowledge of the anatomy of domestic mammals, in particular the dog. A biomedical researcher holding an M.D., on the other hand, will effortlessly apply human anatomy when performing examinations on rhesus monkeys. It is confusing, however, that certain muscles have diverse names in different species. For example, the human flexor hallucis longus muscle is more accurately termed the flexor digitorum fibularis/lateralis muscle in the rhesus monkey, since this muscle also flexes the third and fourth digits in this species. This example demonstrates that not only the names, but also the functions of muscles, can vary between species.