OCR Text |
Show 1881.] VAGINAL APPARATUS IN THE MACROPODID.**. 979 into contact with the urethro-sexual passage." Almost identically same statement is repeated on page 316 of the same writer's article on " Marsupialia" in vol. iii. of Todd's 'Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology' (1839-1847). On page 319 of the same article, moreover, the following words occur:-" I have already shown that one of the chief grounds of the theory of marsupial generation there proposed (that is H o m e loc. cit.) is untenable, the supposed remains of the foetus, described as being situated in the corpus uteri (vaginal cul-de-sac) being nothing more than a portion of the inspissated secretion commonly present both in this sac and the lateral canals. The temporary orifice by which the foetus is stated to pass immediately from the so-called corpus uteri into the vagina (urogenital passage) does not exist."1 W e do not understand why Prof. Owen uses the term " temporary orifice." The passage of Home's already quoted seems to show that after parturition he regarded the orifice as being permanently established. Apart from this, however, it would seem that Prof. Owen did not accept either the conclusions or the facts of Home. As we shall point out further on, in 1868 Prof. Owen made the very important admission tViat in //. Bennetti the aperture of communication between the median cul-de-sac and the urogenital canal is doubtless normal, at least, after parturition. Cams in his Manual2 (1834) speaks of having dissected a Kangaroo which had a young one about 8 inches long in the pouch. He found a means of communication between the two chambers. It is true that in this, as in other cases, the aperture was glued up, or plugged with mucus; but this is a matter which has nothing to do with the question whether the median vaginal portion is always and under all circumstances a blind sac, or whether during and after parturition there is not a possible means of communication between the median vaginal portion and the urogenital sinus. In the same year Prof. Owen3 published an account of the female organs of a specimen of Macropus parryi; and alluding to the mesial cul-de-sac of the vagina, the author says that it " did not extend quite so far down in M. parryi as it does in the better-known species." No allusion is made to the breeding of the animal; but its history is well known and has been recorded both by Bennett4 and by Water-house5. If this female, whose history is so minutely recorded, had ever produced young, no doubt such an event would not have been passed over in silence. As it is we think it extremely probable that the animal died a virgin. In Vrolik's paper6, " Ontleed en naturkundige aanteekeningen over den grooten Kangaroo (M. major),''' published in 1836, the female organs are described and figured. With the aid of a friend we have been able to make out that he found the mesial cul-de-sac 1 The itcdics are our own. 2 Lehrbuch der vergl. Zootomie, 2nd ed., 1834. 3 P. Z. S. 1834, p. 152. 4 Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. i. 1833-1835, pp. 295-300. 3 2fai. Hist, of Mammalia, vol. i. pp. 113-114. 8 Hoeven en Vriese, Tijdschr. iii. pp. 291-356. 63* |