1904.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 479 



are regarded by George" as performing the functions of seminal vesicles. 

 Owen, however, states^^ having found true seminal vesicles quite dis- 

 tinct from the convoluted portions of the vasa deferentia just men- 

 tioned. Further, there are two additional pairs of glands, the ducts of 

 the first opening into the upper portion of the veru montaniim, those 

 of the second into the bulb of the urethra, and regarded respectively 

 by George" as prostate and Couper's glands. The prostate glands were 

 considered by both Pallas'^ and Cuvier^* to be the seminal vesicles, 

 but as the ducts of the latter terminate by openings quite distinct 

 from those of the vasa deferentia, their nature as interpreted by George 

 is probably the correct one. The levatores muscles of the penis arise 

 from the symphysis pubis, and terminate in a single tendon, as was 

 the case in the rhinoceros dissected by the writer, a disposition first 

 noticed by Owen.^'' The erectores and acceleratores muscles were 

 well developed. 



The Hyrax is regarded by naturalists and Biblical scholars as being 

 the animal referred to in the Bible as the " coney" — the |DJ^ (saphan) of 

 the Hebrews and the /otpoypuUtu^ of the Greeks. The Hebrews were 

 forbidden by their law to make use of the coney as an article of food, it 

 being considered by them to be unclean, "because he cheweththe cud, 

 but divideth not the hoof" (Lev. xi. 5). Biblical scholars, in their 

 efforts to determine what kmd of an animal the coney of the Bible 

 really was, do not appear, however, so far as known to the writer, to 

 have noticed that, according to readings of Tischendorff and 

 Van Ess, Vetus Test Greece (Leviticus xi. 5), the coney does not 

 chew the cud, " xac '<>'■' ■^(npnyiiuHtir^^ on duk w^uysc pjjpo-'UfrfKr/" ; 



whereas, according to Deuteronomy xiv. 7, it does chew the cud, 



" xac raura tiu ipayzaOz a-o roiv w>aYi).ixu)'j pripoy.inp.ovP There is no 

 such discrepancy of reading, however, between the corresponding 

 texts in the Hebrew, the Vatican Codex^° and Sweet's Septuagint, 

 the Latin and English versions of the Bible, it being stated in all 



" Op. cit., p. 192. 



»5 O-p. cit., p. 206. 



" Op. cit., p. 193. 



" Op. cit., p. 29. 



'» A7iat. Comp., Tome VIII, p. 165. 



" Op. cit., p. 207 



^° It is a curious fact that notwithstanding the Tischendorff Septuagint is 

 supposed to be an exact copy of tlie Vatican Codex, the ovk that occurs in the 

 former (Lev. xi. 5) is absent in the latter, and that no reason is given for the 

 variant reading. The writer takes tlie opportunity of expressing his thanlcs to 

 Prof. W. C. Lamberton, the distinguished Greek scholar, for giving him the 

 opportunity of consulting the different Greek versions of the Old Testament 

 referred to in the text. 



