338 INTERNAL SECRETIONS 



the study of this question in the guinea pig Amantea (1920) 

 employed what he called an "artificial vagina." He stated 

 that the seminal fluid containing the spermatozoa does not 

 mix with the secretion of the seminal vesicle. He could 

 always find these two portions of the genital secretion dis- 

 tinctly separated from one another in the artificial vagina of 

 the guinea pig, and only a very small number of spermatozoa 

 could be discovered in the coagulated secretion of the seminal 

 vesicles. 



There may be a difference as to the function of the seminal 

 vesicles in different species. In the seminal vesicles of man sper- 

 matozoa are said to be always found. This has again been 

 affirmed lately by Wertheimer and Dubois (1921). On injecting 

 a fluid into the vas deferens of a man, they obtained a dis- 

 tension of the vesicles before so much as a drop had entered the 

 urethra (the experiment of Regnier de Graaf). On the contrary, 

 in the bull and in the ram the injected fluid passes directly into 

 the urethra ; in these species spermatozoa are not to be found in 

 the seminal vesicles. Also the "uterus masculinus" of the 

 rabbit, according to Wertheimer and Dubois (1922), is nothing 

 else than a seminal vesicle containing spermatozoa which are 

 more mobile than those in the vas deferens. The experiment 

 of Regnier de Graaf gives a positive result in the rabbit, 

 contrary to what is to be observed in the guinea pig and in 

 the rat. 



B. PHYSIOLOGY OF THE PROSTATE GLAND. 



It is known to the surgeon that various nervous and psychi- 

 cal troubles sometimes follow the removal of the prostate in 

 man. It has been said, that prostatectomy involves an even 

 more severe operative interference than castration, especially 

 in young individuals. But the number of patients showing 

 nervous troubles after prostatectomy is relatively small. 

 Lichtenstern relates having observed psychical troubles in 

 only one out of a great number of individuals after prostat- 

 ectomy. As Haherern (quoted from Lichtenstern, 19 16) 

 pointed out, these troubles are due to injuries in the neigh- 

 bouring tissues; a conclusion with which Lichtenstern (1916) 

 concurs. 



