OCR Text |
Show 1889.] ON THE ANATOMY OF THE KANGAROO. 433 Reptile-house l; and that it should simultaneously turn up from several distinct localities is yet more remarkable. Described by Hubrecht, in 1879, from Sumatra, it was recorded two years later from Singapore by Blanford; and I find that the Python described in 1881 by Steindachner as P. breitensteini, from Borneo, of which a young specimen, noticed by the late J. G. Fischer, is now in the British Museum, is probably nothing but a synonym of P. curtus. It is true that Steindachner mentions seven pitted upper labials, whereas there are only two in P. curtus; but it is very probable that the author, in his MS., made use of the figure 2, which was taken for a 7 by the printer, and that the discrepancy is merely due to such an error. If, on re-examination, Steindaclmer's typical specimen should prove to have only the first two labials pitted, it may be safely held to be identical with P. curtus, the svnonymy of which would then be as follows :- 1879. Python curtus, Hubrecht, Notes Leyden Mus. i. p. 244 (between Padang and Indrapura, Sumatra). 1881. Python curtus, Blanford, P. Z. S. 1881, p. 222 (Singapore). 1881. Python breitensteini, Steindachner, SB. Ak. Wien, lxxxii. p. 267 (Teweh, Borneo). 1884. Aspidoboa curta, Sauvage, Bull. Soc. Philom. (7) viii. p. 143 (Sumatra). 1885. Python breitensteini, Fischer, Arch. f. Nat. Ii. p. 68, pi. v. fig. 5 (N.E. Borneo). The genus Aspidoboa was founded by Sauvage on the assumed absence of praemaxillary teeth ; but as these teeth are present in the young specimen before me, I can see no reason, in spite of the somewhat aberrant physiognomy, for placing Python curtus in a separate genus. 4. On some Points in the Anatomy of the Female Organs of Generation of the Kangaroo, especially in relation to the acts of Impregnation and Parturition. By E. C. STIRLING, M.A., M.D.Cantab., F.R.C.S. Eng., Lecturer on Physiology in the University of Adelaide. [Received August 28, 1889.] Without claiming to be acquainted at first hand with much of the literature of the subject, I am aware that there has been much discussion concerning the sexual apparatus of the Macropodidae. The present notes are a contribution to that part of the discussion that has centred round the questions whether or not an opening between the central median canal and the urogenital passages is of constant occurrence ; and in the second place whether the embryo in the process of extrusion passes through the central canal or through one or other of the lateral passages. 1 Presented by Mrs. Bonsor (see above, p. 393). |