1881.] VAGINAL APPARATUS IN THK M ACROPODID.E. 983 



etre de meine chez le M. major et que la question ne sera entiere- 

 ment resolue pour cette espece qu'apres rexamen de I'appareil 

 genital d'une femelle qui aura ccrtainemcut accompli I'acte de la 

 parturition." 



We will state here what we have been able to gather from the 

 preparations in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons which 

 have any bearing on this point. 



The preparation 2739 of the Physiological series is an example 

 of the generative organs of a young Ilacropus major, in which the 

 median canal is stated in the Catalogue to be closed. 



No. 27iO and 2740 b exhibit preparations of the same species, 

 in which it is also closed. 



No. 2740 c also exhibits the closed condition in the median canal 

 " of the Kangaroo." 



No. 2740 D has the following note relating to it in the corrected 

 copy of the Catalogue (vol. iv. p. 1.57) : — " No. 2740 d. The female 

 organs of a small species of Kangaroo {M. penicillatus), showing a 

 direct communication, through which a bristle is passed between 

 the common mesial cul-de-sac and the urogenital sinus. ( In Museum 

 before 1861, but not catalogued.)" 



In vol. v. p. 115 there is the following entry : — "34G0 d. The 

 female generative organs of the same species [M. major, Shaw] of 

 Kangaroo, killed towards the close of uterine gestation, with the left 

 impregnated uterus laid open, showing a portion of the thin unvas- 

 cular chorion which enclosed the embryo and its appended sacs. 



" Prepared by Mr. Owen from a specimen presented by Dr. Sweat- 

 man." 



On examining the specimen itself it is found to be in the following 

 condition : — The urogenital sinus has been slit up ; and a window has 

 been cut in the wall of the median vaginal chamber. Through the 

 window in the latter the upper end of a brown glass rod is distinctly 

 seen, while its lower portion is as plainly seen in the urogenital sinus. 

 Now, in regard to this structure, upon which the catalogue is silent, 

 the question naturally arises, to what is the glass rod intended to call 

 attention ? If its presence does not mean that there was naturally 

 a communication between the two chambers, then what does it mean ? 

 If it be true that the two chambers really did communicate, tiien 

 it is remarkable that such a unique specimen should never have been 

 described. 



In the article " Marsupialia " Prof. Owen speaks of having re- 

 ceived an impregnated uterus (no gen. or sp. given) from Dr. Sweat- 

 man. It is possible that this specimen is identical with no. 3460 d 

 in the Coll. of Surgeons Museum. In the same article there is also 

 a reference to an impregnated uterus of Macropus penicillatus, which 

 may possibly be identical with no. 2740 d quoted above ; but neither 

 in the Catalogue nor in the article is there any indication whether 

 these specimens had already produced young or not. 



The following specimens have come under our observation : — 



Macropus rufus (4). 



a. Adult, with young in pouch. 



