1889. ] ON THE ANATOMY OF THE KANGAROO. 433 
Reptile-house '; and that it should simultaneously turn up from 
several distinct localities is yet more remarkable. Described by 
Hubrecht, in 1879, from Sumatra, it was recorded two years later 
from Singapore by Blanford; and I find that the Python described 
in 1881 by Steindachner as P. breitensteini, from Borneo, of which a 
young specimen, noticed by the late J. G. Fischer, is now in the 
British Museum, is probably nothing but a synonym of P. curtus. 
It is true that Steindachner mentions seven pitted upper labials, 
whereas there are only two in P. curtus ; but it is very probable that 
the author, in his MS., made use of the figure 2, which was taken 
for a 7 by the printer, and that the discrepancy is merely due to 
such an error. If, on re-examination, Steindachner’s typical speci- 
men should prove to have only the first two labials pitted, it may be 
safely held to be identical with P. curtus, the synonymy of which 
would then be as follows :— 
1879. Python curtus, Hubrecht, Notes Leyden Mus. i. p. 244 
(between Padang and Indrapura, Sumatra). 
1881. Python curtus, Blanford, P. Z. S. 1881, p. 222 (Singapore). 
1881. Python breitensteini, Steindachner, SB. Ak. Wien, Ixxxii. 
p- 267 (Teweh, Borneo). 
1884, Aspidoboa curta, Sauvage, Bull. Soc. Philom. (7) viii. p. 143 
(Sumatra). 
1885. Python breitensteini, Fischer, Arch. f. Nat. li. p. 68, pl. v. 
fig. 5 (N.E. Borneo). 
The genus Aspidoboa was founded by Sauvage on the assumed 
absence of preemaxillary teeth ; but as these teeth are present in the 
young specimen before me, I can see no reason, in spite of the 
somewhat aberrant physiognomy, for placing Python curtus in a 
Separate genus. g 
4, On some Points in the Anatomy of the Female Organs of 
Generation of the Kangaroo, especially in relation to 
the acts of Impregnation and Parturition. By E. C. 
Srrrtine, M.A., M.D. Cantab., F.R.C.S. Eng., Lecturer 
on Physiology inthe University of Adelaide. 
[Received August 28, 1889.] 
Without claiming to be acquainted at first hand with much of 
the literature of the subject, I am aware that there has been much 
discussion concerning the sexual apparatus of the Macropodide. 
The present notes are a contribution to that part of the discussion 
that has centred round the questions whether or not an opening 
between the central median canal and the urogenital passages is of 
constant occurrence ; and in the second place whether the embryo in 
the process of extrusion passes through the central canal or through 
one or other of the lateral passages. 
' Presented by Mrs. Bonsor (see above, p. 893). 
