Dr. R. Kossman on the Entoniscidee. 97 
difficult to find; and if in it he saw two small punctiform 
holes instead of one, a hundred causes of error may have 
existed. Or in a transverse section? Then how is it possible 
that in the transverse section in which his “ glandes collété- 
riques”’ open, there is nothing indicated of the ovary, which 
is said to open not far from them? TI say that, supposing a 
developed ovarium to be in question, there is actually no room 
for it between the liver and the integument. This latter 
circumstance would seem to show that the section figured by 
him was made through an animal such as he represents in 
figs. 4 and 5, and therefore an immature one; then the posi- 
tion of the “glandes collétériques ”’ exactly corresponds to 
that of the immature ovary; and to this must be added that 
the existence of a shell-gland which in early youth is already 
as large as the still undeveloped ovary itself cannot but appear 
very doubtful. 
In short, I believe that Giard’s “ glandes collétériques ”’ are 
identical with the ovaries, although that estimable naturalist 
is convinced that they undoubtedly secrete the egg-shell. 
I have still to refer to two supposed glands, which are indi- 
cated by Fraisse in his figures by the letters D and K, one 
of which he calls a ‘skin-gland,” the other a “ cement- 
gland.” He reproduces no histological details in the drawing. 
As he says of the “ cement-gland ” that it consists of a great 
number of much contorted tubes, which are all lined with 
rather large epithelial cells, it is probably identical with the 
organ which is shown on the ventral side in my sections 1 and 
2. Itis very improbable that a gland situated in such a po- 
sition really secretes a cement for the ova; there is no analogy 
for any thing of the kind in the class of the Crustacea. ‘I’o 
regard it on account of its position as a salivary gland, which 
Fraisse offers us as another possibility, is likewise not very 
acceptable. ‘The analogy indicated by him with the salivary 
glands of Gyge and Jone (in the latter Fraisse says that he 
has himself found such glands) would also be wanting, as 
these have only been erroneously taken for salivary glands, 
and are in reality parts of the fatty body. I regard these 
supposed glands as merely the strong folding and frizzling of 
the brood-leaves finding expression in the transverse section 
in such forms, and the supposed epithelium as its external 
epidermis. 
As regards the “skin-gland,”’ Fraisse gives neither an 
explanation nor any evidence of its existence. I have not 
found it at all. 
I have arrived at the conclusion of my description of the 
internal organization. I would willingly have communicated 
Ann. & Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 5. Vol. x. 7 
