The Oviparlty of the larger Victorian Perijyatus. 81 



and, for my own ]iart, I entirely fail to see the advantage to 

 be derived therefrom and must refuse to follow his example 

 in this respect. 



Probably the solution of the whole difficulty will be 

 found to lie in the fact that my original opinion was correct 

 after all, and that our larger Victorian Feripatus is specifi- 

 cally distinct from F. leuclurtii. For the present, however, 

 I still refrain from giving it a distinctive name, as I have had 

 very few specimens from other localities to compare it with 

 and do not wish, if it can be helped, to create a new species 

 merely on account of the oviparous habit. This question, 

 however, is discussed in my communication to the Austra- 

 lasian Association already referred to. 



As to the oviparous habit of our larger Victorian s|:)ecies 

 (so called to distinguish it from the smallei- F. in.sigihis), I 

 have some additional evidence to offer and I would like at 

 the same time to recapitulate the main arguments in favour 

 of my view. My critics have entirely ignored all that is 

 new in my observations, such as the remarkable sculptured 

 egg-shell, and have suggested that what I have observed is 

 simply a case of abnormal extrusion of eggs such as takes 

 place sometimes in P. novce-zealandice. Professor Hutton, 

 however, who made the observation on the New Zealand 

 species, merely states that the eggs are often extruded before 

 development is complete and then always die. Professor 

 Sedgwick quotes these statements in his monograph of the 

 genus and j^et, in replying* to my letter in Nature, he states 

 that " no one knows whether the eggs so extruded undergo 

 complete development." I suppose that most animals some- 

 times extrude eggs which never complete their development, 

 but this has really little to do with the question. What I 

 have been endeavouring to prove is that the larger Victorian 

 species of Feripatus is normally oviparous. The two 

 principal arguments originally brought forward — both of 

 which have been entirely overlooked by my critics — were 

 (1) that female specimens dissected at various times of the 

 year were never found with embryos in the uterus, as has 

 been so frequently described for otlier species, but generally 

 with large undeveloped eggs of definite oval shape and with 

 a thick membrane ; (2) that the shell or membrane of the 

 eggs after (but not before) being laid, is very definitely and 

 characteristically sculptured on the outer surface, in such 



* Nature, September 21, 1891. 



