a 
THE MARSIPOBRANCHII. 1 OA 
Belief in an intimate genetic relationship between the 
Marsipobranchi and Teleostei, which naturally follows 
upon this, receives support, as I have already intimated 
(loc. cit. p. 554) from the observations of others upon the 
urinary apparatus and brain of these fishes. And, if the 
supposed vestigial spirvacular (hyoid) cleft of the Lamprey 
originally described by Huxley* really has the value which 
he, Scott, Parker, and Dohrn, have ascribed to it,+ that 
structure will at least testify to a further parallelism in 
modification between (7.e. the impress of a common here- 
ditary tendency upon) the two groups of animals—if, 
indeed, it will not still further emphasize the deduction 
abovenamed. 
The publication of my own paper was closely followed 
by that of a very remarkable monograph by Semont in 
which the Marsipobranchii (Cyclostomata) are regarded 
(p. 182) as having lost their genital ducts. Although I 
can neither accept that author’s surmise§ that these fishes 
and the Teleostei have suffered a loss of connection between 
the kidneys and testis, nor his views concerning the 
homologies of the supposed ducts which have disappeared, 
I gladly welcome his conclusion. It moreover affords me 
no little satisfaction to find that, from the study of the 
genitalia of hermaphrodite Sparidee and Percide, Hoek has 
independently arrived at conclusions in no slight degree 
similar to my own. He has proved the hermaphroditic 
condition to be the more common in the first named of the 
* Jour. Anat. and Phys., Vol. X, p. 420. 
t+As distinguished from Julin, who regards the second gill cleft of the 
Ammocoete as the homologue of the hyobranchial one of Selachians. For 
collected references see Nestler, Arch. f. Naturgesch, 1890, Bd. 1, p. 81. 
+ Jenaische Zeitschr. Bd. XX VI, pp. 89—195. 
§ (loc. cit. p. 178) based on a comparison with the Coecilian Ichthyophis 
glutinosa, cf. also note at the end of this paper (p. 144). 
