J. Anat. (1978), 126, 9, pp.

619-621 619
Printed in Great Britain

ANATOMICAL NOTE
Spurt and shunt muscles
M. A. MACCONAILL
Anatomy Department, University College, Cork, Ireland
(Accepted 18 August 1977)
Stanier (1977) has proposed the abandonment of the anatomico-kinetic classi-
fication of skeletal muscles into 'spurt' and 'shunt' types made by MacConaill
(1946, 1949). His paper is very important for four reasons. First, it completely
misrepresents the grounds upon which the classification was made, and upon which
it is still valid and useful. Secondly, it fails to distinguish between the classification
itself and a hypothesis based on it, but not part of it. Thirdly, it does not appear to
be based upon that well-proportioned knowledge of anatomy that is essential for
any who would write upon the matter. Lastly, it contains no references to any of
MacConaill's relevant publications during the 26 years between 1949 and the year
1975 in which Stanier presumably wrote his own paper - it was accepted for pub-
lication in April 1976. In all four respects it is in complete contrast to the carefully
worded account of this classification given by Warwick & Williams (1973), an
account cited by Stanier himself.
It is proposed to state and correct the misrepresentation; to state briefly the
actual grounds for the classification; to distinguish between the classification and
the hypothesis based on it; and to show how the assumption that led to that hypo-
thesis has been destroyed (for both its author and the objectors to it) by a discovery
by MacConaill in the realm of mathematical physics. This last item will bring the
whole matter up to date.
THE MISREPRESENTATIONS
On the first page of his paper Stanier imputes two definitions to MacConaill; to
quote Stanier's own words: "A 'spurt' muscle is defined as one which provides the
acceleration along the curve of motion when a joint is flexed (sic), and a 'shunt'
muscle is defined as one which provides the centripetal force". MacConaill has
never made these two ridiculous definitions at any time, even as far back as 1946.
Nobody with even a moderate knowledge of myology and myokinesiology would
even dream of doing so.
But Stanier goes further. His next sentence is: "Thus, according to MacConaill,
spurt muscles are used to produce the movement itself and shunt muscles are used
to provide a stable base (sic) for the movement." Again MacConaill has never
made any such statement, or even any statement of like import. Stanier cites only
two sources in supposed support of both of his misrepresentations, namely,
MacConaill (1946, 1949); the second of these is irrelevant (so far as the present issue
is concerned), being merely an account in non-mathematical terms of what was
contained in the earlier work. Had he read the earlier paper carefully, with due
attention to the meanings of English words, he would, perhaps, have seen that it
dealt primarily with the forces exerted by muscles on bones; that the statements
620 M. A. MAcCONAILL
made about the muscles classified as 'spurt' or 'shunt' had to do with the relative
proportions of the 'spurt' (transaxial) and 'shunt' (paraxial) components of the
said forces; and that all the statements made then about the functional role of each
of the two classes of muscles were carefully qualified by words familiar to all
educated people.
Had he gone further and read the subsequent relevant publications of MacConaill
(1956, 1957, 1966) and MacConaill & Basmajian (1969), it is possible that he would
not have put pen to paper on this matter. As it is, his paper proceeds from the two
misrepresentations that have been quoted above; and it is only an attempted gloss
of the papers he cites in his support, namely, those of Stern (1971) and Joseph (1973).
These two writers had confused the classification with the hypothesis based on it,
but not part of it; they were not the first to do so.

THE BIPARTITE CLASSIFICATION

Note. In this section and later, repeated reference will be made to MacConaill &
Basmajian (1977). This is because myokinetics is allotted a separate chapter in
this book, and also because it shows the link between the anatomical basis of the
classification and myokinematics, as well as abolishing the hypothesis.
The classification. MacConaill's bipartite classification is based upon an anat-
omical metrical ratio; the names of the two classes are based on the immediate
kinetic consequences of that ratio. This ratio was not assigned a name and symbol
until 6 years ago; it is now called the partition-ratio and symbolized by p (Mac-
Conaill, 1971). It is defined thus. Let c be the distance between the axis of a swing
at the joint and the functional origin of a muscle causing that swing; and let q be the
distance between the same axis and the functional insertion of the same muscle:
then p = c/q. When p < 1 then the muscle is called a shunt muscle, otherwise it is
called a spurt muscle.
The reason for the names is this. When a muscle pulls on a bone it exerts a force
that can be resolved into a transaxial and a paraxial force at right angles to each
other - 'axial' refers to the long axis of the bone. The nineteenth century English
engineers used the shorter 'spurt' and 'shunt' instead of the longer 'transaxial' and
'paraxial', respectively; MacConaill followed their admirable example. In the case
of shunt muscles the shunt force is always greater than the spurt force whatever be
the angle between the bones; in the case of spurt muscles, the spurt force increases
from 0 to being progressively greater than the shunt force as the moving bone
swings more and more from collinearity with its conarticular fellow. The most
rigorous mathematical treatment of this matter is, naturally, to be found in
MacConaill & Basmajian (1977). The earlier treatment of it was, however, sufficiently
rigorous for its purpose.
Since the metrical and the consequent kinetic distinctions between the two classes
are based on functional origins and insertions it follows that if these be reversed
then a spurt muscle becomes a shunt muscle, and conversely; Stanier (1977) says
that this fact makes the classification meaningless. This is like saying that the
classes 'puller' and 'pulled' are meaningless because a player may be sometimes in
one class and sometimes in the other during a tug-of-war!
The two anatomico-kinetic classes are, then, quite distinct and meaningful, and
so are still valid. Those who would change their short names must first find better
ones - or else deny anatomical and physical facts easily verifiable.
 Spurt and shunt muscles 621
BIRTH AND DEATH OF A HYPOTHESIS
In 1946 MacConaill begat a hypothesis upon the body of his muscle classification;
in 1977 he killed it publicly.
The original form of this hypothesis (MacConaill, 1946), wholly misrepresented
by Stanier, is irrelevant here, for it was modified 20 years later (MacConaill, 1966).
Its new form assigned to shunt muscles the task of producing the larger centripetal
force needed for ensuring the curved paths of bones moving at high speeds. At the
time (and until after 1969) all the experimental evidence was in favour of this form.
In 1969 MacConaill undertook a rigorous re-examination of the physics of the
curvilinear motion of material bodies. He found inter alia mira that the centripetal
force acting along a bone moving at any speed was a consequence of its curvilinear
motion; not a cause of it, as it would be in celestial mechanics. In MacConaill &
Basmajian (1977) will be found a complete account of this investigation and of its
presumptive bearing on our notions of muscular function.
The hypothesis, then, is now dead. So also are all the illogical objections to the
bipartite classification that have been based on it; for the hypothesis, though based
on the classification, was never part of it. Distinguo is an important verb in science.

CONCLUSION
The division of skeletal muscles into 'spurt' and 'shunt' types should be retained.
It is scientifically valid, and completes the description of a muscle or part thereof in
terms of its (functional) origin(s) and insertion(s) by making these meaningful
instead of just dead facts.
REFERENCES
JOSEPH, J. (1973). Sequential contraction of muscles producing the same movement at a joint. New
Developments in Electromyography and Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 1 (ed. J. E. Desmedt), pp.
665-674. Basel: S. Karger.
MACCONAILL, M. A. (1946). Some anatomical factors affecting the stabilizing functions of muscles.
Irish Journal of Medical Science 115, 160-164.
MACCONAILL, M. A. (1949). The movements of bones and joints. 2. Function of the musculature.
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 31B, 100-104.
MACCONAILL, M. A. (1956). The statics of single joints. Irish Journal of Medical Science 125, 353-364.
MACCONAILL, M. A. (1957). Motion at one joint. Irish Journal of Medical Science 126, 99-113.
MACCONAILL, M. A. (1966). Some minimal principles applicable in myomechanics. Bio-Medical En-
gineering 1, 498-503.
MACCONAILL, M. A. (1971). The kinematic anatomy of skeletal muscle fibres. 1: Basic principles and
swing muscles. Irish Journal of Medical Science 140, 387-402.
MACCONAILL, M. A. & BASMAJIAN, J. V. (1969). Muscles and Movements. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins
Co.
MACCONAJLL, M. A. & BASMAJIAN, J. V. (1977). Muscles and Movements, 2nd ed., passim. Huntington,
N.Y.: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co.
STANIER, D. I. (1977). The function of muscles around a simple joint. Journal of Anatomy 123, 827-830.
STERN, J. T. (1971). Investigations concerning the theory of 'spurt' and 'shunt' muscles. Journal of
Biomechanics 4, 437-453.
WARWICK, R. & WILLIAMS, P. L. (1973). Gray's Anatomy, 35th ed., pp. 495-496. Edinburgh: Longman
Group Ltd.