OCR Text |
Show 516 DR. M. WATSON ON THE SPOTTED HY.ENA. [May 3, 2. Additional Observations on the Anatomy of the Spotted Hysena. By M. WATSON, M.D., F.Z.S., Professor of Anatomy, the Owens College, Manchester. [Received March 21, 1881.] (Plate XLIX.) On former occasions 1 have laid before this Society the results of observations on the anatomy of the male1 and female2 organs of Hya?na crocuta; and having, through the kindness of Mr. Sclater, had an opportunity of again submitting to anatomical examination the carcasses of two additional specimens of this remarkable animal which died in the menagerie of the Society during last summer, I desire to record some supplementary observations made at that time. The specimens referred to were both full-grown and of large size. One was a female, which had on several occasions given birth to young while in the Society's collection, whilst the other was a male. An examination of the genital organs of this female whilst perfectly fresh, served to explain several difficulties to which I drew attention in m y previous communication with regard to the alteration which these organs undergo during the process of parturition. The organs which I formerly described being those of a virgin, I now lay before the Society the results of a comparative examination of these with the organs of a mature female. Female. With respect to the form and arrangement of the ovaries, Fallopian lubes, and uterus, I have nothing to add to what has already been stated in the paper referred to, beyond the fact that on slitting open the body of the uterus, I could distinguish about the middle in length of that organ two very slightly projecting folds of mucous membrane, which I failed to recognize in my first specimen, and which ought possibly to be regarded as indicating the position of the os uteri. If this view be correct, then the lower half of the corpus uteri of m y former paper must be regarded as the morphological equivalent of the vagina. At the same time the very small size of these folds, the absence of any structural difference in character of the mucous membrane lining the two portions of the canal, and the similarity in thickness of the muscular coat of both throw doubt upon this interpretation-a doubt which can only be satisfactorily dispelled by an examination of the parts in a pregnant female, and the consequent determination of the position of the young in utero. In the second female dissected the urinogenital canal differed much in several particulars from that of the virgin. In the latter the extremity of the clitoris is perforated by " a single canal of so small a size, that one is at first sight inclined to believe that 1 P. Z. S. 1878, p. 416. * p. z. S. 1877, p. 369. |