Adrian ( '10, ' 11 ) described a dou1)lc sciisoiy representation for the feet 011 the cortex of the cat. IIe fouiid sensory represciitatioii for forefoot aiid liiiidfoot OIL the lower portion of niitei*ior cctosylviaii gyrus iu addition to the niaiii sensory R ~C W S situated more i-osti.ally on tlic coi-tcx. Thc area for hindfoot was always caudal to that f o r forefoot. Woolsey ('43, '44) in ;I study of cats, dogs aiid nionl;eys, found this second somatic receiving ai*ea pi-esent iit all tlii-ec species, and in addition fouiid that face, prosiinal portion of liml)s, and trunk were also i~cpi.csciitcd. \'oolscy and I V a i i ~ ( '15) liave cxteiideci this ol)sei*vatioii to include tlic ral)bit, aiid ll'oolsey aiid Fairmnii ( '46) obscried ti similar systciii iii pigs, sheep, and other mammals. 12asmusseii aiid Penfield ( '47) offer evidence that a siriiilar systerri is present iii iiiiiii. F r ~i i c h , Sugar, and Chusid ( '17) sliowcd that the secoiidai-y sensory receptive area in the ~i i ~i c i ~( l u c llas affeimit illlti effel*e1lt coiiiiectioiis with tlic preaiid yostcentral coiivolutioiis liilntci*ally.
Woolsey terms these soniatic a i m s I a i d IT to avoid imputing to tliciii fuiictioiiwl sigiiificaiicc and aiiatoriiical relationships I ~f o r e thcsc ai-e kiiowii. He distiiiguishcs soinatic area I1 from soiiititic area I by sevci-a1 fcntiiiw. Area I1 is bilatcixlly i~eprcsc?iitcd for face, ariii and leg, in coilti-ast to sol National Rrsr:irc.Ii Council Fellow, lWT-48.