16 
minal ducts are not mentioned, whereas the parovarium was found 
to be large and, in structure, very like the epididymis of a young 
drake. 
Brandt (1889) describes an arrhenoid redstart (Ruticilla phoe- 
nicurus) (1. c. p. 123—130), the ovary of which appeared normal, 
while the front part of the oviduct was obliterated (probably obli- 
terated late in the life of the specimen, which had been observed 
to copulate). On the left side the anterior part of the Wolffian 
duct, connected with the parovarium, was demonstrated through serial 
cuttings, while on the right side only traces were found in the cor: 
responding place. ABS examination does not seem to have com- 
prised the posterior part of the ducts). Also an old hen is described 
(p. 130—134), the plumage of which was only feebly arrhenoid; 
the ovary appeared sterile (containing abnormal and reduced fol- 
licles, and structures to a certain degree resembling seminal canals), 
the oviduct short, narrow, thin and closed towards the cloaca; and 
where the oviduct-opening ought to have been, a male genital på- 
pilla was found (but no other part of the Wolffian duct is men- 
tioned). In the same work Brandt relates (p. 116) a case, mentio- 
ned in 1868 by Bogdanow: a grey-hen (Tetrao tetrix), in which 
N. Wagner had found male genital papillæ (but further informa- 
tion is not given). É 
Recently Ørjan Olsen (1912) describes quite a number of 
pseudohermaphroditic females: 5 grey-hens (Tetrao tetrix) (PP- 19 
—21, Nrs. 1—5), 9 hens of the capercaillie (T. urogallus), all 
as to plumage arrhenoid in different degrees, possessing sterile 
(frudimentary” or reduced) ovaries (in a few cases two ovaries 
were present), oviduct and Wolffian ducts, the latter always uncol 
led; further 3 willow-grouse (Lagopus lagopus) and 1 ptarmigan 
(Lagopus mutus) with abnormal plumage, and like the preceding 
with the ovary sterile, and provided with oviduct and untwisted 
Wolffian ducts. 
If we compare the cases of pseudohermaphroditic females here 
related with the two cases of pseudohermaphroditic males described 
above, one difference will be perceived at once: in all the females") 
1) Perhaps the Ruticilla excepted. Brandt's description, however, does 10! 
settle the question, if the ovary was not about to become sterile- 
