BAUMGARTNER: COPULATION IN GRYLLIDiE. 335 



The hundreds of glandular tubules which empty into the up- 

 per end of the common duct vary greatly in length and di- 

 ameter, apparently depending in part upon the room they find 

 for development (figs. 6, 7 and 9). They take up all the avail- 

 able space, completely surrounding the seminal vesicles, ex- 

 tending far backward beside the rectum and the spermato- 

 phore pouch, or crowding forward and upward around the 

 intestinal tract. Many of them are short while others are long. 

 The whole group of tubules forms a large mass which takes 

 up quite a space (fig. 6). 



The "prostatic gland," first noticed by Berlese and later 

 described by Fenard, I found "only after much diflficulty," as 

 the latter says. From my dissections I had concluded that the 

 part so described was a part of the irregular pouch which 

 molds the plate of the spermatophore. But a careful study of 

 serial sections reveals the presence of a pair of oval glands or 

 pockets attached on either side to the common duct. They 

 have very short connecting tubes and they lie in the muscular 

 and connective tissue surrounding that part of the common 

 duct between the ganglion and the mold. The glands are not 

 surrounded by "yellowish fat," as Fenard suggested; but they 

 have "thin walls and are filled with a clear fluid." This fluid 

 seems to harden into a clear yellowish chitin-like substance 

 when treated with fixatives. In this it resembles the secretion 

 from the annexed glands; but their secretion is darker and 

 more granular. Judging from the behavior of the secretion 

 and the position and connections of these glands I think they 

 do not furnish a lubricant, but probably have something to do 

 with the formation of the more flexible thread and the plate. 



The common duct, after passing close to the floor of the ab- 

 domen, turns dorsalward and then empties into the cavity of 

 the spermatophore mold (fig. 9). This apparatus was care- 

 fully studied by Lespes (11). Many of his observations are 

 keen and to the point, but his description in some points is 

 not very clear. Berlese (4) studied this structure too, but he 

 could not get away from the idea that he was dealing with the 

 ordinary structures, so he applies the name "penis," etc., to 

 the parts and so makes his description misleading. Fenard 

 (6) pays no attention to the hard structures and so he does 

 not make out the relations and functions of parts in this region. 

 Peytoureau (19) studied mostly only the morphological rela- 



