124 PROF. M. WATSON ON THE ANATOMY OF THE 
openings, neither of them larger than a crow-quill; the two lateral of these lead to two 
small sacs (canals of Malpighi), which pass a little way along the sides of the com- 
mon vagina. The urethra opens into the very beginning or fundus of the common 
vagina. The middle orifice leads into the common vagina, which soon dilates.” It 
appears therefore that in Hunter's specimen the secondary vagina opened by a single 
orifice into the urino-genital canal, whereas in mine this single orifice is replaced by two 
ora vagine separated by the vaginal septum. Otherwise Hunter’s description of the 
urino-genital canal agrees with my own. Mayer ', again, describes the os uteri externum as 
opening directly into the urino-genital canal, and does not mention a secondary vagina. He 
does not describe the canals of Gaertner. The difference between Mayer's description 
and that given aboye lies here—that whereas he found a wnilocular uterus communi- 
cating by a single orifice with the wrino-genital canal, in my specimen the dilocular uterus 
opens into the vagina, and this, again, communicates with the urino-genital canal by means 
of two ora vagine. Miall and Greenwood’s description of these orifices agrees exactly 
with my own, except that they do not refer to the canals of Gaertner. 
In the African Elephant Perrault? found fow openings at the commencement of the 
urino-genital canal—namely, those of the urethra, of the corpus uteri, and of the two 
canals of Gaertner. The latter he does not describe, but figures in the central drawing 
on plate xxi. Forbes* corroborates Perrault’s description, but differs from him in the 
interpretation of the parts, regarding the os uteri externum of Perrault as the opening 
of the secondary vagina. This difference of interpretation depends upon the fact that 
in Forbes’s specimen, as already stated, the cornua uteri opened into a single corpus 
uteri, which in turn communicated with a secondary vagina opening into the urino-genital 
canal, whereas in Perrault’s specimen the cornua uteri did not coalesce to form a corpus 
uteri, but communicated by distinct orifices with the space which Forbes regards as the 
secondary vagina. That Mr. Forbes is right in regarding the space in question as a 
secondary vagina I have no doubt. Having myself examined the specimen, the fact 
that the mucous membrane of this canal differs essentially in structure from that of both 
the horns and body of the uterus, and that the space was separated from the latter by 
a well-defined os uteri, at once convinced me that Mr. Forbes’s view is the correct one. 
The only difference between the urino-genital canal of the Indian, as compared with 
that of the African Elephant, lies in the fact that in the latter the urethra opens upon 
the cushion which occupies the centre of its blind extremity, whereas in the former the 
urethral orifice is situated above that prominence. In the African Elephant there is 
therefore a cul-de-sac above the projection referred to, which does not exist in the Indian 
species, its place being occupied by the orifice of the urethra. 
Neither Hunter, Mayer, nor Owen* makes any reference to the presence of Cowperian 
ducts in the female Indian Elephant. Miall and Greenwood *, on the other hand, de- 
i Loc. cit. p. 38. * Loe. cit, p. 133. 5 Loe. cit. p. 434. 
* Anatomy and Physiology of Vertebrates, vol. iii. p. 692. ° Loe, cit. p. 65. 
