1889. ] ANATOMY OF THE KANGAROO. 439 
width. No apertures of any kind could be detected opening into 
either of these culs-de-sac or any structure rudimentary, or otherwise, 
in connection with them. No trace ofa bifid arrangement. Structures 
similar to this and the preceding I have neither met with nor seen 
described, and I leave their nature and relations for further description 
and investigation, this being foreign to my present purpose. 
The conspicuous longitudinal ridges in the ventral wall of the uro- 
genital canal described by Mr. Fletcher (Proceedings of the Linnean 
Society of New South Wales, vol. vi. 1881), whose description I 
have frequently been able to confirm, were not in this case very well 
marked; still, two ill-defined folds of mucous membrane were 
Enlarged sketch of parts adjacent to urethral orifice of Osphrante 
erubescens, Scl. 
mc, median canal; X, opening between this and the urogenital passage; w, 
orifice of urethra ; f, keel-like process extending between vu and X; g, ridge 
marking off the ellipsoidal space in which u and f are situated ; 2, openings 
of ducts of Bartholin, 
recognizable in the positions indicated by him; other ridges existed 
still less well marked and of irregular arrangement. 
In the above description I have made no attempt to treat in any 
way exhaustively the subject of the anatomy and the homologies of 
the female generative organs, and there is much even in these two 
specimens which seems to require further examination and explanation. 
There seems also to exist a considerable amount of variation in the 
disposition and relations of the various parts even in closely allied 
species. I present these very important notes particularly with the 
view of throwing light upon the questions as to which passages are 
traversed by the seminal fluid and the embryo respectively. So 
