1889.] 



ANATOMY OF THE KANGAROO. 



439 



width. No apertures of any kind could be detected opening into 

 either of these culs-de-sac or any structure rudimentary, or otherwise, 

 in connection with them. No trace of a bifid arrangement. Structures 

 similar to this and the preceding I hwe neither met with nor seen 

 described, and I leave their nature and relations for further description 

 and investigation, this being foreign to my present purpose. 



The conspicuous longitudinal ridges in the ventral wall of the uro- 

 genital canal described by Mr. Fletcher (Proceedings of the Linnean 

 Society of New South Wales, vol. vi. 1881), whose description I 

 have frequently been able to confirm, were not in this case very well 

 marked ; still, two ill-defined folds of mucous membrane were 



Fig. 3. 



Tfl.C 



Enlarged sketch of parts adjacent to urethral orifice of Osphrante 

 eruhcscens, Scl. 



m.c, median canal ; X, opening between this and the urogenital passage ; u, 

 orifice of urethra ; f, keel-iike process extending between k and X ; g, ridge 

 marking oil' the ellipsoidal space in which u and /are situated ; h, openings 

 of ducts of Bartholin. 



recognizable in the positions indicated by him ; other ridges existed 

 still less well marked and of irregular arrangement. 



In the above description I have made no attempt to treat in any 

 way exhaustively the subject of the anatomy and the homologies of 

 the female generative organs, and there is much even in these two 

 specimens which seems to require further examination and explanation. 

 There seems also to exist a considerable amount of variation in the 

 disposition and relations of the various parts even in closely allied 

 species. I present these very important notes particularly with the 

 view of throwing light upon the questions as to which passages are 

 traversed by the seminal fluid and the embryo respectively. So 



