306 MR. F. E. BEDDARD ON NEW OR [May 18, 
deferentia on each side, which were invariably extremely conspicuous ; 
the two vasa deferentia of each side remained perfectly distinct, and 
could readily be traced as far as the prostatic gland, into which they 
open. The latter structure is a tubular organ of a nacreous appear- 
ance, lying behind the generative orifice, and oceupying some five 
or six segments ; it communicates with a large rounded pouch-like 
structure (figs. 1, 2, 6), which overlies the generative pores on either 
side, by anarrow duct. The prostatic gland is constricted at about the 
middle of its extent, and it is at this point that the vasa deferentia 
open into it. M. Perrier has accurately figured the appearance 
presented by the ‘ bursa copulatrix’ when its upper wall has been 
removed (loc. cit. pl. ii. figs. 27, 28). I find that the duct of the 
prostatic gland is continuous with the curved penis (woodcut fig. 2), 
while the rounded pad (¢) which lies behind the penis receives the 
duct of a peculiar glandular body (a), which is either horseshoe- 
shaped as in fig. 2 or Y-shaped as in fig. 1. This glandular appendix 
has been referred to by Perrier, who did not, however, succeed in 
making out its relations with the bursa copulatrix; neither has 
M. Perrier figured or described the termination of the prostatic 
duct in the penis. 
4. Appirionat Notre on Microcuara rApri, F. i. B. 
Since my paper on the structure of this Worm was communicated 
to the Society, Mr. Benham has published a careful and detailed 
account of its anatomy. 
The description of the female generative apparatus which Mr. 
Benham gives’ agrees in the main with my own description, which I 
have left unaltered in the paper. A structure which [ identified 
with the oviduct—a pair of ciliated funnels on the posterior wall of 
segment 12—has appeared to Mr. Benham not to be really an ovi- 
duct but to be related to a glandular structure on the anterior 
septum of segment 12, possibly serving as the excretory duct of 
its products. On the other hand, the structure described by myself 
as an ovary, lying in the segment behind that which contains the 
presumed oviduct (Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. xii. pt. 3, pl. xv. fig. 4, 0), 
is also identified as such by Mr. Benham. 
I am now inclined to think that both Mr. Benham and myself 
were wrong in that identification, and that the supposed ovary 
really corresponds to what has been termed by Bergh* the recepta- 
culum ovorum. In the first place, Mr. Benham remarks that the 
ova which completely filled this supposed ovary exhibited no grada- 
tion in size among themselves such as is to be seen in the ova of Lum- 
bricus ; in the second place, I have observed this structure in another 
example of the worm, recently received at the Gardens from the 
Rev. G. H. R. Fisk, where it was entirely devoid of ova. Icuta 
careful series of sections through the ‘ovary’ and oviduct, and could 
* Quart. Journ, Mier. Sci. 1886, p. 279, pl. xvi. figs. 7, 8, 14. 
* Zool. Anzeiger, no. 220, p. 232, 
