544 
J. S. KINGSLEY. 
Since writing the earlier part of this paper I have learned 
that during the past summer Mr. H. L. Osborn attempted 
artificial fertilization of the eggs of Limulus at Beaufort, and 
that like myself he came to the conclusion that the operation 
was not a success and threw these eggs away. A few, how- 
ever, were overlooked, and when found some time afterwards 
it was seen that they were really developing, and that the 
early changes were very slow. This fact recalled at once my 
observations on the eggs which I attempted to fertilize and the 
early changes that I witnessed in them, which I thought to be 
the indications of decomposition. At first the eggs were 
regularly granular, but half an hour after impregnation the 
surface inside the chorion became irregular and pitted with 
cavities varying greatly in size, each filled with a transparent 
fluid, which at the time I interpreted as caused by a migration 
of the protoplasm to the surface (fig. 1). These pits in- 
creased in size and number especially at one side of the egg, 
until they ran together leaving the surface ornamented by a 
number of hemispherical globules of yolk which twenty-one 
hours after impregnation presented the appearance shown in 
fig. 2. After this, though I kept the eggs for several weeks, I 
noticed no change except in those which were undoubtedly 
spoiled except in one instance. In that egg, twenty-nine hours 
after impregnation, a profile view showed two mushroom-shaped 
bodies (fig. 3) raised from the rest of the yolk, and suggest- 
ing polar globules but not very vividly. The meaning of these 
three observations is uncertain. If connected with the deve- 
lopment of the egg the second would at once recall the peculiar 
segmentation occurring in some spiders. It is not certain 
that it was a normal condition, and any conclusions drawn 
from it are of no value until it is confirmed. 
The first definite fact is the formation of a larval cuticle. 
This Dr. Packard regarded as cellular, but as he used no 
sections his mistake, as well as that of Dohrn in regard to the 
same envelope, is readily explained. Since the publication of 
my preliminary note Dr. Packard has re-examined the subject, 
and informs me that lie agrees with my account of the nature 
