| OCR Text |
Show 1889.] ANATOMY OF THE KANGAROO. 439 width. No apertures of any kind could be detected opening into either of these culs-de-sac or any structure rudimentary, or otherwise, in connection with them. No trace of a bifid arrangement. Structures similar to this and the preceding I hive neither met with nor seen described, and I leave their nature and relations for further description and investigation, this being foreign to m y present purpose. The conspicuous longitudinal ridges in the ventral wall of the urogenital canal described by Mr. Fletcher (Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New.South Wales, vol. vi. 1881), whose description I have frequently been able to confirm, were not in this case very well marked; still, two ill-defined folds of mucous membrane were Enlarged sketch of parts adjacent to urethral orifice of Osphrante erubescens, Scl. m.c, median canal; X, opening between this and the urogenital passage; u, orifice of urethra ; f keel-like process extending between u and X ; g, ridge marking off the ellipsoidal space in which u and/are situated ; h, openings of ducts of Bartholin. recognizable in the positions indicated by him ; other ridges existed still less well marked and of irregular arrangement. In the above description I have made no attempt to treat in any way exhaustively the subject of the anatomy and the homologies of the female generative organs, and there is much even in these two specimens which seems to require further examination and explanation. There seems also to exist a considerable amount of variation in the disposition and relations of the various parts even in closely allied species. I present these very important notes particularly with the view of throwing light upon the questions as to which passages are traversed by the seminal fluid and the embryo respectively. So |
