1881.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 133 



csecal valve. As might have been expected on account of the large 

 and complex stomach, there was no well defined cfecum. It is an 

 interesting fact, however, that the peculiar glandular-like structure 

 in the cfBcal end of the colon of the Giraffe first described by Cob- 

 bold, should be present in the Hippopotamus. There was nothing 

 very peculiar about the pancreas or the spleen. The duct of the 

 former pierced the duodenum separately from the ductus choledo- 

 chus. The latter was closely bound to the greater curvature of 

 the stomach by a fold of peritoneum. The liver was a quadri- 

 lateral mass not subdivided to any extent into lobes. The gall 

 bladder was absent in the female ; in the male, however, it was 

 present and measured 6 inches long. 



On comparing m}^ observations with those of the anatomists 

 already referred to, I find, that while some of the descriptions 

 accord very well with mine, others diflTer considerably. Thus 

 Daubenton's description is very good, especially when it is remem- 

 bered that it is based upon the examination of a fcetus. His^ 

 figures give a very good idea of the relations of the four stomachs 

 when they are separated from each other by division of their con- 

 necting bands. Peters' ^ and Vrolik's^ accounts are very fair. 

 Unfortunatel}^, however, no figures are given. On the other hand, 

 I cannot say that the figure given hy Crisp ^ of the stomachs 

 illustrate the specimens examined by me. His descriptions, how- 

 ever, of the colic gland, spleen, liver and pancreas accord very 

 well with my observations. Clark ^ gives four figures, illustrating 

 the stomach described by him, that by Gratiolet, and of one pi'e- 

 served in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. The 

 figure of the latter gives a much better idea of the stomach 

 examined by me than either that of Clark's or Gratiolet's. Garrod ® 

 states that " he could find no confirmation of the peculiar position 

 of the diflferent parts described by Mr. J. W. Clark in his speci- 

 men." Possibly these differences observed in the stomach may 

 be due to age, sex, to the extent to which the different stomachs 

 had been separated, or to the amount of food that thej^ contained, 

 etc. As all of these conditions will influence greatly the form of 

 the organ, it need not occasion surprise that I find the accounts 



1 Op. cit., figs. 1 and 2, PI. IV. ^ Op. cit., p. 180. 



3 Op. cit., p. 240. * Op. cit., fig. 3, *p. 604. 



^ Op. cit., figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, p. 190. « Op. cit., p. 16. 



