EGGS OF P£IUPATUS. 37S 



3.— FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON THE EGGS OF 

 PERIPATUS. 



By ARTHUR DENDY, D.Sc, F.L.S. 



In August last I read a short communication^ before the 

 Royal Society of Victoria in which I recorded certain obser- 

 vations which seemed to me to indicate that the common 

 Victorian species of Peripatus (generally considered to be 

 P. leuckartii) is normally oviparous, instead of, as in the case 

 of all othep observed species of the genus, viviparous. I also 

 forwarded to Nature a letter on the subject, which appeared 

 in that periodical on September 17. 



The grounds upon which I based my conclusion were as 

 follows : — On the 18th of May last I stocked a vivarium 

 with male and female specimens oi Peripatus. On the 31st 

 of July I found that a number of eggs had been deposited 

 (the total number deposited afterwards proved to be 15). 

 These eggs were doubtless laid by the Peripatus, for there 

 was nothing else present to lay them, and they agreed in 

 size, shape and the nature of the contents with eggs which 

 I have often found in the uterus of female Peripatus. Two 

 facts strongly indicated that the oviparous habit was normal 

 and not accidental : these were — (1) That I had dissected a 

 good many specimens of the species at various times of the 

 year and had never found developing embryos in the uterus, 

 but only undeveloped eggs. (2) That the eggs, after 

 deposition, exhibited a beautifully and regularly sculptured 

 pattern on the outside of the shell ; an observation, I beheve, 

 quite new for Peripatus, and reminding one forcibly of the 

 eggs of insects. The eggs while still in utero never exhibit 

 this pattern, which appears to be formed as the egg passes 

 through the vagina, and it is scarcely conceivable that such 

 a pattern should be formed unless the habit of laying eggs 

 were normal. 



As considerable doubt has been thrown on the correctness 

 of my conclusion that our common Victorian species of 

 Peripatus is normally oviparous, I take the present oppor- 

 tunity of replying to ray critics, and at the same time giving 

 some additional evidence which has come to light since I 

 last wrote on the subject. 



In Nature of September 24, 1891, Professor Sedgwick 

 replies to my observations by a short note in which he misses 



' Proe. Royal Soc. Victoria, vol. ir, p. 31. 



