1889.] ON THE ANATOMY OF THE KANGAROO. ^33 



Reptile-house ^ ; and that it should simultaneously turn up from 

 several distinct localities is yet more remarkable. De3cril>ed by 

 Hubrecht, in 1879, from Sumatra, it was recorded two years later 

 from Singapore by Blanford; and I find that the Python described 

 in 1881 by Steindachiier as P. breitenstehii, from Borneo, of which a 

 young specimen, noticed by the late J. G. Fischer, is now in the 

 British Museum, is probably nothing but a synonym of P. curtus. 

 It is true that Stcindachner mentions seven pitted upjjer labials, 

 whereas there are only two in P. curtus ; but it is very probable that 

 the author, in his MS., made use of the figure 2, wbicb was taken 

 for a 7 by the printer, and that the discrepancy is merely due to 

 such an error. If, on re-examination, Steindaclmer's typical speci- 

 men should prove to have only the first two labials pitted, it may be 

 safely held to be identical with P. curtus, the svnonymy of which 

 would then be as follows : — 



1879. Python curtus, Hubrecht, Notes Leydeu Mus. i. p. 244 

 (between Padang and Indrapura, Sumatra). 



1881. Python curtus, Blanford, P. Z. S. 1881, p. 222 (Singapore). 



1881. Python breitensteini, Steindachuer, SB. Ak. Wien, Ixxxii. 

 p. 207 (Teweh, Borneo). 



1884. Aspidoboa curta, Sauvage, Bull. See. Philom. (7) viii. p. 143 



(Sumatra). 



1885. Python breitensteini, Fischer, Arch. f. Nat. li. p. 68, pi. v. 



fig. 5 (N.E. Borneo). 



The genus Aspidoboa was founded by Sauvage on the assumed 

 absence of prsemaxillary teeth ; but as these teeth are present in the 

 young specimen before me, I can see no reason, in spite of the 

 somewhat aberrant physiognomy, for placing Python curtus in a 

 separate genus. 



4. On some Points in the Anatomy of the Female Organs of 

 Generation of the Kangaroo, especially in relation to 

 the acts of Impregnation and Parturition. By E. C. 

 StiklixGj M.A., M.D.Cantab., F.R.C.S. Eng., Lecturer 

 on Physiology in the University of Adelaide. 



[Eeceived August 28, 1889.] 



Without claiming to be acquainted at first hand with much of 

 the literature of the subject, I am aware that there has been much 

 discussion concerning the sexual apparatus of the Macropodidae. 

 The present notes are a contribution to that part of the discussion 

 that lias centred round the questions whether or not an opening 

 between the central median canal and the urogenital passages is of 

 constant occurrence ; and in the second place whether the embryo in 

 the process of extrusion passes through the central canal or through 

 one or other of the lateral passages. 



^ Presented by Mrs. Bonsor (see above, p. 393). 



