284 
SIDNEY F. HARMED . 
really differ from those of both L. Tethyae and L. Leptoclini. 
In Taf. i, fig. 1 (No. 11), Schmidt has figured the ganglion 
of L. Raja as “testes/ 5 and what are doubtless the testes as 
“ ovaries •” so that his statements as to the hermaphrodite 
nature of this species, at any rate, are based on a misunder- 
standing. As may be concluded from the description of L. 
pes, on p. 7, Schmidt seems further to have believed that the 
nephridia formed parts of the generative organs. In Taf. ii, 
fig. 8, he has represented (L. pes) a duct passing from the 
vesicula seminalis to the “ovary 55 on each side, this “ovary 55 
consisting of a large rounded body containing “ ova 55 and sper- 
matozoa. From his second paper (No. 20) one may conclude 
that Schmidt considers it probable that the spermatozoa cannot 
escape to the exterior, their only exit from the vesicula semi- 
nalis being through the ducts leading to the “ ovaries. 55 I am 
convinced that Schmidt’s “ovaries’ 5 are in reality the testes, and 
his “ova 55 the sperm mother-cells. By referring to my own 
fig. 13 it will he seen that the testes of L. Tethyae have the 
same characters as Schmidt 5 s so-called “ ovaries 55 in L. pes. I 
must most strongly express my conviction that in no species of 
Loxosoma is there any duct passing from the vesicula semi- 
nalis to the ovaries, and that where such an arrangement has 
been described the duct is really the vas deferens, and the 
“ ovary 55 is the testis. Vogt’s account of the passage of a 
bundle of spermatozoa from the vesicula seminalis to the exte- 
rior is doubtless correct, although Schmidt has questioned its 
accuracy. I have not observed the process of fertilisation in 
Loxosoma. 
What may be the nature of the bodies t and t' in Schmidt’s 
Taf. ii, fig. 8 (No. 11), I cannot say, but I am unable to agree 
even with his second account of their character (No. 20). In 
this paper he states that the dorsal one is a bud rudiment, 
which is the same thing as the “ generative rudiment” described 
by himself, Nitsche, and others in the bud (that is to say, the 
organ which on my view is the ganglion). The “ bud rudi- 
ment” described by Schmidt in the adult is thus very different 
in nature from the structure identified by him as the same 
