HERMAPHRODITE GENITALIA OE THE CODFISH. 553 



type of Ganoid geuital ducts is found in the Chondrostei," In 

 consideration of the facts alluded to on p. 551, I would go further 

 and suggest that the general plan of structure of the Chou- 

 drostean's genitalia is the most primitive of that of all living 

 Gnathostomata, and that it most nearly realizes that type from 

 which the latter originally diverged. 



The Salmones are among those Teleostei in which the ovary- 

 ducts are absent, aud the urino-genital sinus iu them (PI. XIV. 

 figs. 3 & 4, s.) assumes the form of a well-defined sac which receives 

 the ureters posteriorly (bl.") and is iu the female perforated late- 

 rally by the pori genitales (cf. br." of fig. 3). Comparison of the 

 male (fig. 4) shows these pores to correspond in position with the 

 ostia of the geuital ducts {d.g."). These facts have been long ago 

 described and figured by Cams and Otto *. Comparison of 

 those Salmonoids possessed of both abdominal pores and oviducal 

 shts (figured by Carus aud Otto aud by Max "Weber) with the 

 Marsipobranchs, seems to me little short of fatal to the view 

 entertained by Balfour f, Bridge J, and others, that the pori 

 genitales of the latter represent the pori abdominales of Elasmo- 

 branchs, Ganoids, aud Teleosteans. If they do, in entering 

 into relationship with the walls of the urinary sinus they 

 must have undergone a translocation for which there is no 

 suggestion of a parallel elsewhere. On the other hand, com- 

 parison of both sexes of the Marsipobranchs with those of the 

 Salmones points, much more naturally, towards a direct homology 

 between the parts in question. Deepen the sac of the female 

 Salmon (fig. 3), even to the extent of that of the male (fig. 4), . 

 or shorten that of the Marsipobranch, and it would be difficult 

 to distinguish between the two types. And if, as Scott asserts §, 



* Erlauterungstafeln z. vergleichencl. Auat., Heft. t. Leipzig, 1840, pp. 8-9, 

 pi. iv. fig. 6 & pi. V. fig. 3. 



i- Journ. Anat. & Phys. vol. x. pp. 34-35 (1876). 



X Ihicl. vol. xiv. p. 86 (1879). 



§ Morph. Jahrb. Bd. vii. p. 167 (1882). Cf. Shipley, Quart. Journ. Micr. 

 Sci. n. s. vol. xxvii. p. 352 (1887). Compare also the account of tlie develop 

 ment of tlae urinary ducts of the Teleostei, given by Mcintosh and Prince, 

 Trans. E. Soc. Edinb. vol. xxv. part iii. p. 785 (1890). Most interesting and 

 suggestive in view of Scott's declaration is the recent discovery by Liszt (Zeitschr. 

 wiss. Zool. Bd. slv. p. 595, and Anat. Anz. 1890, p. 640) that in Crcnikthnis 

 pavo the so-called urinary bladder of the eml^vyo opens for a slicrt time into 

 the base of the alimentary canal. 



