112-4 



VESICULA PROSTATICA. 



hike their different forms, and with these 

 their different destinies ? Careful contem- 

 plation leads us to regard the Weberian organ 

 as one of this class of structures. As was 

 previously mentioned, Weber had pointed out, 

 that by its situation and connection with the 

 nro-genital canal, and very frequently (as in 

 the beaver) by its form, it corresponds so 

 completely to the uterus of the female mam- 

 malia, that there is every reason for regarding 

 it as its morphological equivalent in the male 

 individual. 



According to this view, the difference be- 

 tween the Weberian organ and the uterus is 

 limited to that of a lesser or greater degree 

 of development. In the female individual it 

 becomes the receptacle of the embryo. The 

 physiological task which it thereby under- 

 takes demands a complete development, while 

 in the male individual, in whom it has not 

 such an important functional import, and is 

 only occasionally applied to this or that sub- 

 ordinate purpose, it undergoes a check, or 

 even retrogrades in development. The dif- 

 ferent degree of this checked or retrograde 

 metamorphosis, depending on its different 

 application, conditionates the difference of its 

 anatomical development. In many male in- 

 dividuals it completely disappears ; in others 

 it remains an useless relic of a rudimentary 

 character, while in others it assumes a more 

 considerable size and development. 



The form of the receptacle of the embryo, 

 which, despite many varieties, is in general 

 very constant, is connected with its functional 

 import. But the Weberian organ is devoid 

 of so specific an object. What wonder, then, 

 that we find it more freely submitted to the 

 play of the formative process, and that its 

 form and development are even subject to 

 manifold varieties in particular individuals ? 



The theory of Weber at once gives us a 

 sufficient explanation of the different anato- 

 mical circumstances of this notable organ ; 

 and in like manner it affords a new and secure 

 basis for the efforts of anatomists to deter- 

 mine the analogy i. e. the common plan of 

 structure of the male and female organs. 



Ever since Aristotle and Galen, vain at- 

 tempts have been made to discover an indica- 

 tion of the uterus in the male of the Mam- 

 malia; and sometimes this structure, sometimes 

 that now the vesicula seminalis, and now 

 the prostate has been thus regarded. The 

 explanation given by Weber offers the first 

 satisfactory adjustment, and at the same time 

 promises a sufficient interpretation of the nu- 

 merous hermaphrodite misdevelopments, or of 

 androgyny. Weber even hints at this (and in- 

 dependently of him Bergmann also), while he 

 subjects the well-known case of Ackermann* 

 to a morphological analysis f, although only 

 with the immediate intention of further sup- 

 porting his explanation of the vesicula pro- 

 statica. He came to the conclusion that the 



* Infantis amlrogyni historia et iconographia, 

 Jense, 1805. See also Art. HEBMAPHBODITISM, 

 Vol. II. p. 709. 



t Zusatze, loc. cit. S. 13. 



part described by Ackermann as a cystoid 

 uterus, the opening of which into the uro- 

 genital canal was situated close to the efferent 

 apertures of the vasa deferentia, was due 

 solely to a disproportionate enlargement of 

 the vesicula prostatica. 



Under such circumstances it is easily ex- 

 plicable why the theory of Weber has re- 

 ceived a very general assent. Huschke, Theile, 

 Hausmann, Bergman n, Leydig, and the author 

 in Germany, Duvernoy in France, and Adams 

 in England, have all accepted it, and have 

 sought to give it further stability by new re- 

 searches. And Leydig* has further shown 

 that the type of the glands imbedded in the 

 wall of the Weberian body completely cor- 

 responds with that of the uterine glands in 

 the respective female animals. 



H. Meckelf only has expressed himself 

 against the interpretation of Weber, although 

 he so far agrees with it as also to see in the 

 vesicula prostatica a rudimentary structure of 

 chiefly morphological import ; but he explains 

 it as being the analogue, not of the uterus, 

 but rather of the vagina. The chief support 

 which he adduces of this theory is the relation 

 of the Weberian organ to the vasa deferentia 

 and the urethra. 



It is well known that the older anatomists 

 regarded the vasa deferentia as the structures 

 which, in the female individual, discharge the 

 functions of the Fallopian tubes. Even Weber 

 partook of this opinion, although Muller j 

 had already shown the morphological differ- 

 ences of the two in birds, and Kathke in 

 snakes. That this holds good of Mammalia 

 was first maintained by Bergmann || and the 

 author of this article IT, on the ground of their 

 comparative researches; and it was afterwards 

 reduced to certainty by the observations of 

 Kobe-It** on the development of the genitals 

 in the human subject. As Muller and Rathke 

 had previously found, Kobelt showed that, 

 at an early date of embryonic life, tubes and 

 seminal ducts exist simultaneously in all in- 

 dividuals, but that, in the different sexes, 

 only one of these canals attained a complete 

 development. 



If the seminal and Fallopian tubes were 

 identical structures, the Weberian theory of 

 the morphological nature of the vesicula pro- 

 statica could not possibly be correct ; for, in 

 that case, the former of these must constantly 

 open into the upper end of the vesiculag, or 

 into its two cornua respectively, which is 

 never the case. But now that we know the 

 difference of these two canals, the anatomical 

 arrangement of the vasa deferentia and 

 Weberian organ no longer constitutes an ob- 

 jection against the explanation of the latter 

 as the uterus. 



* Opus cit, S. 49. 



j- Zur Morphologic, &c., S. 47. 



j Bildungsgeschiehte der Genitalien. Bonn, 1830. 



Entwickelungsgeschichte der Natter, S. 212. 

 Kouigsberg, 1839. 



|| Op. cit. in Wagner's Handworterbuch. 



f Zur Anatomie, &c., S. [>n. 



** Der Nebeneierstock des Weibes. Heidelberg, 

 1847. 



