290 



JOURNAL, BOMBAY NATURAL KIST. SOCIETY, Vol. XXI. 



microscope, it will be seen to be double in its whole leno-th. Fio-. 1 shows 

 y . the appearance presented by an 



"^-^ '^ actual ■ dissection, stained and 



mounted, and examined under the 

 lowpower of the microscope. Fig. 

 2 shows a portion of the duct as it 

 is passing through the fifteenth 

 segment, examined under the 

 high power. Both drawings were 

 made with the help of the camera 

 lucida. Dr. Powell describes this 

 duct as single. It may be that 

 we have been describing different 

 species, or it may be that he has 

 trusted too much to unaided vision. 

 In the above mentioned points, the basis of disagreement is clear : Dr. 

 Powell has described certain structures as being such and such, while I 

 have described them otherwise ; but in the third matter for discussion, the 

 nature, of the glands which I have called oesophageal, we stray away from 

 matters of fact. Since Dr. Powell has not given any description of the 

 glands in question, I cannot compare my description with his. There are 

 certain large glands in the fifth segment which were, I think, first described 

 by Perrier. Dr. Powell has not mentioned their form, which is exactly like 

 that of a bunch of grapes in miniature ; nor their colour, which is red ; nor 

 their large duct, which opens into the cesophagus on either side. These 

 structures are glands with a duct opening into the oesophagus ; this is plain, 

 hence I spoke of them as the oesophageal glands. I was unwilling to call 

 them nephric or peptic, or even pepto-nephric, since their function is un- 

 known. Dr. Powell will surely admit that anyone guessing the function of 

 a glandular organ might make a mistake, unless he was guided by some 

 evidence. 



He writes in -the review " we do not quite appreciate what he describes as 

 the ' oesophageal glands.' " The verb ' to appreciate ' is used in various 

 senses ; we cannot, therefore, be quite sure of Dr. Powell's opinion concern- 

 ing these glands, which he does not quite appreciate. Is he of the opinion 

 that they do not exist as described by Perrier or does he object to my 

 agnostiscism in regard to their function. It is not certain that Dr. Powell 

 has seen the glands in question, for perhaps we have been dealing with 

 different species, yet he is referring to my description of them when he 

 says — "These organs are undoubtedly nephridia." The excretory organs 

 known as nephridia in earthworms are minute whitish tubes ; how then can 

 organs which resemble red grapes be nephridia ? But Dr. Powell says 

 "undoubtedly" they are nephridia. We may, therefore, suspect that some 



