2 6 ON THE APPENDICES GENITALES 1CLASPKRS1 IN THE SELACHIANS. 



the latter being of special interest with regard to a comparison with the Plagiostomes; it is much 

 thicker than the M. dilatator, and covers the lateral surface of the stem-piece 6 Z , and of the piece /; 

 to the terminal part. Into this muscle sinks through the dorsal appendix-slit a continuation of the 

 outer skin as a glandular-bag , which on account of its simplicity might be called « rudimentary , 

 when compared to that of the Plagiostomes, as it has evidently remained in a similar stage of 

 development as that, with which it be»ius in those; by a further development forward and ven- 

 trally a quite similar glandular bag would arise as the one described as characteristic in the Pla- 

 giostomes. The direction of the fibres of the J/, compressor is rather peculiar in the Holocephales 

 i -re the special part); here I shall only mention that part of the fibres seen dorsally (fig. 70), runs along 

 the lateral edge of the appendix-slit rather straight from the piece /? backward in quite the same 

 manner as in the corresponding part, the outer lip-muscle , of the J/, compressor in the Plagiostomes. 

 The whole structure of this muscle forms, as it seems to me, an incontestable proof as to the correct- 

 ness of my interpreting the muscular coat of the glandular bag of the Plagiostomes as part of the 

 skeletal muscles proper. 



In the female the whole muscular system of the appendix is wanting; according to v. Da- 

 vid off the little terminal joint has an attachment for part of the dorsal muscles arising from the 

 wall of the body (i. c. p. 477, pi. XXIX, fig. iS, ps), corresponding to the attachment of the same muscle 

 on the piece b x in the male; just on account of this v. Davidoff explains the terminal joint to be 

 homologous with this piece. 



The fin-muscles of the male have been rather slightly treated in the earlier literature; a com- 

 parison between several forms has been almost quite out of the question, onlv a few forms having been 

 described. Thus among: the Sharks Acanthias has already been mentioned bv Bloch, anions: the 

 Rays some Raja - species by several authors (Raja radiata very briefly and incompletely by Bloch, 

 Raja circa lans [or clavata\ by Duvernoy, R. clavata by Vogt & Pappenheim and later bv 

 Moreau), CJiimecra monstrosa by v. Davidoff. Petri alone has examined several different forms 

 and tried to make a comparison, but he cannot be said always to have been successful or to have 

 found the correct interpretation. While he upon the whole pretty correctly has interpreted the muscle 

 I have called M. adductor, -- his M. flexor pinner, or pterygopodii, a name rejected by me as presum- 

 ably not suitable, -- and M. dilatator, a name introduced by him (at all events in Scyllium, Acanthias 

 and Torpedo), the other muscles have either been misapprehended or not at all mentioned. The M. extensor 

 he has only seen in Scyllium and Raja, where he calls it M. plexor pterygopodii interior, and of my 

 .1/. compressor he has only mentioned the part, which I have called the outer lip-muscle (of the 

 appendix-slit), in Acanthias and Raja, and with different appellations, respectively as M. levator (of the 

 spur) and as M. jlexor biceps (which latter name is also given to a quite different muscle in Scyllium), 

 and lie 'has assigned to it different, partly misapprehended, functions. It has already been observed 

 that both Petri and all other authors, who have mentioned the glandular bag, have understood the 

 muscular wall to be a separately developed dermal muscular system, and consequent v omit it by the 

 mentioning of the fin-muscles proper. In the special part account will be rendered of the earlier 

 literature, and the particular works will be referred to. 



