VESICULA PROSTATICA. 



But it is not on this that Meckel chiefly 

 relies. He conspicuously brings forward an- 

 other argument. He states that, if with Weber 

 we regard the vesicula prostatica as the 

 uterus, and its opening as the os tincae, we 

 must in consequence consider as the vagina 

 the beginning of the uro-genital sinus, into 

 which open, beside the vesicula, the ejacu- 

 latory ducts and the urethra; a view which 

 has often occurred to the author of this 

 article. But, in the female Mammalia, the 

 vagina never receives the urethra. This is 

 always inserted at the outer border of the 

 vagina, where it passes into the short and 

 sinus-like dilatation of the uro-genital canal 

 (vestibu/uw, atrium vngince), so that the vagina 

 always lies internally to the aperture of the 

 urethra. 



Its relation to the vasa deferentia is exactly 

 similar, as the history of their development 

 proves that they are originally the efferent 

 ducts of the Wolfiian bodies. It is true that 

 these latter generally disappear in the female 

 mammal, but here and there some relics of 

 them are left. This is especially the case in 

 the female ruminant and pig, where they are 

 known under the name of Gartner's canals. 

 Here also they open, never into the vagina, 

 but into the ductus uro-genitalis, together with 

 the urethra. So that in all cases, after the 

 points of opening of the urethra and vasa 

 deferentia, the vagina comes next interiorly. 

 And in the male mammalian the Weberian 

 organ has this situation : it is therefore, con- 

 cludes Meckel, the vagina, and not the uterus. 



While I allow the correctness of the facts 

 brought forward by Meckel, and while, 

 against my own earlier opinion, I have some 

 scruples as to the unconditional accuracy of 

 Weber's explanation, yet 1 cannot approve 

 of Meckel's conclusion. The form of the 

 Weberian organ, the bifurcation at its upper 

 end, which occurs in so many instances, even 

 its being imbedded in a transverse fold of 

 peritoneum (corresponding to the broad liga- 

 ments of the uterus) remind one too closely 

 of the female uterus to admit of the analogy 

 being mistaken. 



Now, in order to reconcile this circum- 

 stance with the facts brought forward by 

 Meckel, there remains but two expedients ; 

 either to suppose a complete deficiency of 

 the vagina in the male mammal (in which 

 case the explanation of Weber would be pre- 

 served entire), or to set forth the Weberian 

 organ as the morphological equivalent of the 

 vagina and uterus together. 



The latter of these two acceptations, which 

 I have already defended against Meckel in 

 another place*, finds its full confirmation in 

 the observations on its normal and abnormal 

 development. On these grounds it may be 

 advisable to review them briefly in this place. 



From the exposition which llathkef has 

 given us of the development of the vagina 



* Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, loc. cit. 

 t Abhandlungen zur Bildungs- und Eutwicke- 

 lungsgeschichte, Leipzig, 1832, S. 60. 



VOL. IV. 



and uterus, it becomes evident that these two 

 structures at first present the appearance of 

 a common or inseparable tube, the genital 

 canal, which is only afterwards divided into 

 an upper and under section by a different 

 development of its coats, being connected with 

 a transverse dismemberment. One of these is 

 developed into the vagina; the other forms * 

 the uterus. At its first formation the uterus 

 is simple: its cornua only begin later, when 

 the tubes enter its cavity. 



Now, if this genital canal sustained a check 

 of development prior to the separation of the 

 uterus and vagina, it would remain as a simple 

 tube, the horns of which would be either not 

 at all or but imperfectly developed : in short, 

 it would be a Weberian organ. 



In this way the observations on the normal 

 development of the genitals do not in the least 

 contradict the explanation of the Weberian 

 organ as a genital canal (uterus plus vagina). 

 It is true that we can scarcely thence deduce 

 an absolute proof. We find it, however, in 

 the evidence afforded by the pathological his- 

 tory of its development, since we observe that 

 the Weberian organ is there metamorphosed 

 into both of these parts. 



I have already mentioned above, that* a 

 knowledge of the Weberian organ is of the 

 greatest importance in the study of herma- 

 phrodism a study which now requires a 

 fundamental revision in connection with the 

 recent observations on the morphology of the 

 genitals and especially since the numerous * 

 instances of androgyny for the most part de- 

 pend upon an excessive development of this 

 structure in the male individual, associated 

 with some other abnormal occurrences in the 

 development of the uro-genital canal and the 

 penis, which appear at the same time, accord- 

 ing to the law of coexistence. 



I have now a number of such androgyni 

 before me. They are all goats, in whom this 

 deformity of the genitals is proportionately 

 very frequent. The exterior segments of the 

 genitals (uro-genital sinus and penis) are, in 

 different degrees of development, formed after 

 the female type, i e. they are checked in their 

 development to male parts; and so also is 

 the Weberian organ ; while instead of ovaries, 

 testicles with epididymes and seminal ducts 

 are present. 



In one of these, a new-born animal, the 

 Weberian organ forms a very considerable 

 tubular dependency, which opens by an oval 

 and fissured aperture of about \\ lines in 

 length, close beneath the two vasa deferentia, 

 in the commencement of the short and wide 

 uro-genital canal. (Fig.882.) From thence the 

 Weberian organ ascends for about two inches 

 as a short and wide cylinder, to split at its 

 extremity into two horns of an inch in length. 

 The left horn is hollow in its whole course, 

 but the right only in its lower half. The 



* Another smaller number of androgyni includes 

 female individuals, with excessive development of 

 the Wolffian bodies and their efferent ducts (Epi- 

 didymis and vasa deferentia). Vide, Simpson, loc. 

 cit., p. 707. 



