OCR Text |
Show 1881.] VAGINAL APPARATUS IN THE MACROPODID E. 983 etre de meme chez le M. major et que la question ne sera entiere-ment resolue pour cette espece qu'apres l'examen de 1'appareil genital d'une femelle qui aura certainement accompli facte de la parturition." W e will state here what we have been able to gather from the preparations in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons which have any bearing on this point. The preparation 2739 of the Physiological series is an example of the generative organs of a young Macropus major, in which the median canal is stated in the Catalogue to be closed. No. 2740 and 2740 B exhibit preparations of the same species, in which it is also closed. No. 2740 c also exhibits the closed condition in the median canal " of the Kangaroo." No. 2740 D has the following note relating to it in the corrected copy of the Catalogue (vol. iv. p. 157):-"No. 2740 D. The female organs of a small species of Kangaroo (M. penicillatus), showing a direct communication, through which a bristle is passed between the common mesial cul-de-sac and the urogenital sinus. (In Museum before 1861, but not catalogued.)" In vol. v. p. 115 there is the following entry :-"3460 D. The female generative organs of the same species \_M. major, Shaw] of Kangaroo, killed towards the close of uterine gestation, with the left impregnated uterus laid open, showing a portion of the thin unvas-cular chorion which enclosed the embryo and its appended sacs. " Prepared by Mr. Owenirom a specimen presented by Dr. Sweat-man." On examining the specimen itself it is found to be in the following condition:-The urogenital sinus has been slit up ; and a window has been cut in the wall of the median vaginal chamber. Through the window in the latter the upper end of a brown glass rod is distinctly seen, while its lower portion is as plainly seen in the urogenital sinus. Now, in regard to this structure, upon which the catalogue is silent, the question naturally arises, to what is the glass rod intended to call attention? If its presence does not mean that there was naturally a communication between the two chambers, then what does it mean ? If it be true that the two chambers really did communicate, then it is remarkable that such a unique specimen should never have been described. In the article " Marsupialia " Prof. Owen speaks of having received an impregnated uterus (no gen. or sp. given) from Dr. Sweat-man. It is possible that this specimen is identical with no. 3460 D in the Coll. of Surgeons Museum. In the same article there is also a reference to an impregnated uterus of Macropus penicillatus, which may possibly be identical with no. 2740 D quoted ahove ; but neither in the Catalogue nor in the article is there any indication whether these specimens had already produced young or not. The following specimens have come under our observation :- Macropus rufus (4). a. Adult, with young in pouch. |