132 Felix Bryk: 



Soc. und fügt Abbildungen bei, so (Fig. i) nach: „inSmintheus u. 

 Apollo... as along their dorsal live", so (Fig. i^) nach: ,,In 

 Clodius etc. . . , bit by bit.", so (Fig. i^, i*) nach „By uncover- 

 ning etc. in opposite senses", Taf. 4, Konturzeichnung i. Männl. 

 Apparat (Profil) mitPeraplast. i^ nach Entfernung Peraplast. i^, i*. 

 p. 51: Professor Howes undertock the task of dissecting 

 and examining the specimens sent him by Mr. Thomson 

 and is quoted as saying that von Siebold believed the 

 secretion was derived from the male and to be functional 

 Kopula in prolonging the coitus adding: „I cannot agree with 

 him that this is the case, the adhesion of the copulating 

 (^Genital- individuals being assured by the hook-like claspers of the 

 apparat niale. The pouch is densest in the vicinity of the female 

 genital orifice, and its detailed structure conforms inter- 

 nally to the ventro-lateral parts of the male genital funnel. 

 In view of this, the fact that it is impossible in dissecting 

 of specimens procured during copulation to remove the 

 pouch without bringing away the internal generative ap- 

 paratus of the female, points to my mind to a direct con- 

 nection between that apparatus and the pouch itself. It 

 suggests the probability of an origin of the same from the 

 body of the femaly, and not of the male, as is generally 

 supposed." Messrs. Thomson and Howes therefore differ 

 diametrically as to the principal point in question. I now 

 come to the Observation of Mr. David Bruce, on Smintheus. 

 He wrote from Denver, 9th. June 1886: „I have lost 

 Kopula a whole day watching a pair in copulation, and anxiously 

 waiting for them to separate. They had been together 

 twenty-four hours, and as it was evening, and I was very 

 tired, I gently pulled them by the closed wings, when 

 they separated, and nothing of the pouch appearcd on 

 the female. I watched carefuUy with a glass from day- 

 light in the morning tili I separated them, and these are 

 my conclusions. The pouch is entirely formed from the 

 male. I have read Mr. Thomsons account. What he terms 

 the ,,membranous covering" is the true pouch itself. 

 There is certainly some peculiar organ of the male under 

 the pouch (or membranous covering). The semitransparent 

 nature m.embrane enabled me to see this, a V shaped 

 organ, which showed itself as nearly white through Ihe 

 semi-transparent sheath. It Struck me as like the widely 

 cleft point of a quill pen; occasionally, the male would 

 work this organ back and forth, one brauch of it having 

 a piston-like 



(p. 52) movement in each division of the pouch, and the 

 pouch was soft and elastic and yieldcd to the motion. On 

 separating the pair, to my surprise, instead of the pouch 

 remaining on the female, the whole affair belonged to the 



