19G 
EDWIN S. (iOODRICll. 
of Annelid larva) (ti'ochospliores), but I can form no opinion 
as to the reality of any such resemblance.” 
The next author to mention the organ is MacBride, who 
briefly describes its development, believing that it arises 
from the communication between the gut and the second 
myotome (11).^ 
Van Wijhe (14) describes the canal of Hatschek’s nephri- 
dium in the adult, applying to it the name Schlundforsatz : 
^^eine enge Rohre, welche dem linken Seiteurande der linken 
Aorta angeschmigt ist. Das enge lumen wird von einem 
einschichtigen Cylinderepithel begrenzt und bildet strecken- 
weise seitliche Ausbuchtungen. Wo eine solche ange- 
schnitten wird, kbnnen zwei Lumina im Schnittbilde auf- 
treten. Unmittelbar hinter dem Velum miindet die Ebhre 
mit einer feinen Offnung in den Schlund aus.” He denies, 
however, the presence of the coelomic cavity described by 
Hatschek, and does not accept the latter’s theory as to the 
organ’s function. “ Nach meiner Meinung,” says van Wijhe, 
“ ist das organ nicht anderes als ein Rudiment des vorderen 
Darmendes, welches beim Embryo in das Plimmersiickchen 
(linke Entodermsackchen) ausmiindete.” 
It is to Goldschnidt that we are indebted for the first 
description of solenocytes in the nephridium of Hatschek (4), 
placing its homology with the posterior nephridia beyond 
doubt. His account seems, however, to be based on imper- 
fect material, and he falls into the error of ascribing to the 
canal an internal opening such as Boveri had described in 
the paired nephridia. 
I have recently had the opportunity of studying this 
interesting organ in adult and larval specimens in Helgo- 
land,^ and am thus able to give a more complete description 
of it. 
' I am unal)le to agree witli tlie view of either Hatschek or MacBride 
as to the origin of this nepliridium. 
- I gladly seize this opportunity of thanking Prof. Heincke, Prof. 
Hartlauh, and the staff of the Kiinigl. Biologische Anstalt for the kind 
way in which they received me in Helgoland. 
