1881.] VAGINAL APPARATUS IN THJi MACROPODID.li. 979 



into contact with the luethro-sexual passage." Ahiiost itienticiilly the 

 same statement is ie[)eated on page 31(i of the same writer's article 

 on "Marsupialia" in vol. iii. of Todd's 'Cyclopifidia of Anatomy 

 and Physiology' (1839-1847). On page 319 of the same article, 

 moreover, the following words occur : — " I have already shoviMi that 

 one of the chief grounds of the theory of marsupial generation there 

 proposed (that is Home loc. cit.) is untenable, the supposed remains 

 of the foetus, described as being situated in the corpus uteri (vaginal 

 cul-de-sac) being nothing more than a portion of the inspissated 

 secretion commonly present both in this sac and the lateral canals. 

 The temporary orifice by which the fcetus is stated to pass immedi- 

 ately from the so-called corpus uteri into the vayina {urogenital pas- 

 sage) does not exist."^ We do not understand why Prof. Owen uses 

 the term " temporary orifice." The passage of Home's already 

 quoted seems to show that after parturition he regarded the orifice 

 as being permanently established. Apart from this, however, it 

 would seem that Prof. Owen did not accept either the conclusions or 

 the facts of Home. As we shall point out further on, in 186S Prof. 

 Owen made the very important admission that in II. bennetti the 

 aperture of communication between the median cid-de-sac and the 

 urogenital canal is doubtless normal, at least, after parturition. 



Cams in his Manual" (183-1) speaks of having dissected a Kan- 

 garoo which had a young one about 8 inches long in the pouch. He 

 found a means of communication between the two chambers. It is 

 true that in this, as in other cases, the aperture was glued up, or 

 plugged with mucus ; but this is a matter which has nothing to do 

 with the question whether the median vaginal portion is always 

 and under all circumstances a blind sac, or whether during and after 

 parturition there is not a possible means of communication between 

 the median vaginal portion and the urogenital sinus. 



In the same year Prof. Owen' published an account of the female 

 organs of a specimen of Macropus parryi ; and alluding to the mesial 

 cul-de-sac of the vagina, the author says that it " did not extend quite 

 so far down in M. parryi as it does in the better-known species." 

 No allusion is made to the breeding of the animal ; but its history 

 is well known and has been recorded both by Bennett ' and by Water- 

 house^. If this female, whose history is so minutely recorded, had 

 ever produced young, no doubt such an event would not have been 

 passed over in silence. As it is we think it extremely probable tiiat 

 the animal died a virgin. 



In Vrolik's paper^ " Ontleed en naturkundige aanteekeningen 

 over den grooten Kangaroo (31. major)," published in 183G, the 

 female organs are described and figured. With the aid of a friend 

 we have been able to make out that he found the mesial cul-de-sac 



* The italics are oui- own. 



^ Lehrbuch cler vergl. Zootomie, 2ud ed., 18.34. 



^ P. Z. S. 1834, p. Ifti 



' Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. i. 1833-183.5, pp. 29.")-300. 



^ >'at. Hist, of Mammalia, vol. i. pp. 113-114. 



•^ Hoeven en Vriese, Tijdschr. iii. pp. 291-35(). 



63* 



