Gadow (1891) divides the obturator complex into two muscles (or muscle groups), which he terms M. obturator and Mm. accessorii M. obturatoris. He states that the former is homologous with the mammalian obturator internus and the latter with the obturator externus. Hudson (1937), accepting Gadow's homologies, renamed these muscles M. obturator internus and M. obturator externus. Nearly all subsequent workers have followed Hudson's terminology, with its implication that these muscles are homologous with the mammalian muscles of the same name. Howell (1938) is an exception. He points out (pp. 78, 79) that the obturator internus of Hudson is homologous with the obturator externus of mammals. His evidence is convincing: "In origin the obturator is somewhat suggestive of the mammalian obturator internus, for which it has uniformly been mistaken. That the latter interpretation is incorrect, however, is attested by the facts that it receives twigs of n. obturatorius within the pelvis, passes _through_ the obturator foramen rather than dorsal to the border of the ischium, and it is segregated from any muscle with tibial innervation. Insertion has shifted only to a slight and unimportant degree as compared with that of the mammalian obturator externus, and beyond question it is the equivalent of that muscle. The stimulus for a longer muscle, has been the same, resulting in the extension of origin to within the pelvis of the externus in birds and the internus in mammals, but the obturator internus is an extension of a part of the gemellus mass and this does not occur in any vertebrate class but Mammalia." Howell applies the term M. obturator to the entire obturator complex. Romer (1927), studying the development of the thigh musculature in chick embryos, concluded that the entire obturator complex is homologous with the mammalian obturator externus plus quadratus femoris. He considered the avian M. flexor ischiofemoralis to be the homologue of the mammalian obturator internus. Gadow, in his work on the ratites (1880:34), states that M. obturator (obturator internus of Hudson) cannot be homologous to the mammalian obturator internus, but must represent the obturator externus. His reasoning is as follows: "Als M. pectineus kann man diesen Muskel nicht auffassen, da er auf der Aussenfläche des Trochanter major inserirt, ferner auch nicht als M. obturator internus der menschlichen Anatomie, da er nicht vom Plexus ischiadicus, sondern vom Plexus cruralis aus innervirt wird. Seiner Innervation und Insertion nach wäre er nur mit dem M. obturator externus zu vergleichen, wobei er seinen Ursprung im Verhältniss zum Menschen nur bedeutend weiter auf das Os ischii und Os pubis distalwärts ausgedehnt hätte und so allerdings der Lage nach mit Ausnahme seines Insertionsdrittels ein 'internus' geworden wäre."