42 
D; L. SOÓS 
The construction of the spermatheca duct is very interesting. Its 
chief characteristic is that the diverticulum is many times thicker than 
the spermatheca duct itself, furthermore it is very long and many 
times curved. The under part of the duct under the ramification is as 
large as the diverticulum, and since the latter is the direct continuation 
of the under part of spermatheca duct, therefore the upper part of 
the spermatheca duct appears to be the appendix. The researches of 
A. Schmidt and Schuberth have shown that many species of Campylaeae 
have in this respect the same characteristics, and particularly is the 
construction of the spermatheca duct and of the diverticulum of C. con¬ 
fusa similar to those of C. coendans, but no one species is known 
which has a spermatheca duct and diverticum so conspicuously different 
in size as in the case of C. coendans. 
The spermatheca duct does not open immediatly into the oviduct, 
but the two ducts lead into one common cavity, which is also visible 
from the outside since its w r all is more or less inflated, and gradually 
merges into the wall of the vagina. 
Another peculiarity of the spermatheca duct is that its end close to 
the opening is inflated and sacklike (fig. 2, Jm which sack is to be found 
between the spermatheca duct and the oviduct, it is never absent, and 
is always well developed. This sack is a characteristic of the repro¬ 
ductive system of C. coendans , and does not occur in the other spe¬ 
cies of the Campylaeae, at least it is not mentioned in the literature 
on this subject, and as far as I know is not shown in any figures either. 
What its function can be is not shown from its structure. 
I mention only for the purpose of showing the character of the 
genitalia that the penis is sharply defined from the epiphallus, further 
the flagellum is very short as also is the penis retractor muscle which 
letter is generally cospicuously long in the Campy laeae . 
It is quite clear from what has been said above that C. coendans 
in respect of his reproductive system should be placed among the 
Campy laeae, because its organs differ from those of the typical Cam¬ 
py laeae only in a slight degree. We get, however, quite a different result 
if we look also at the construction of its gnawing apparatus. A slug 
which has sicklelike teeth and a smooth (oxygnath) jaw composed of 
two plates, can not be regarded as a representative of the genus Cam- 
pylaea. In these two systematically very important characteristics 
C. coendans differs not only from the Campy laeae but also from all 
the Helicidae, except the Allognalhus Grateloupi mentioned above. 
It differs from A. Grateloupi again in the characteristics of its repro¬ 
ductive system. Though the reproductive system of A. Grateloupi is 
