DISCUSSION OF DATA 
As has been already indicated in the introduction, the early records 
in the literature of ovarian pregnancy do not, from the absence of histo¬ 
logical detail, bring critical evidence to bear on the points which concern 
us in this paper. It is unnecessary therefore to deal with them here. 
Since the publication of Catherine van Tussenbroek’s paper a number of 
well authenticated cases have been put on record. The majority of these 
have been summarised by Kelly and MTlroy. In a number of the cases 
reported, the state of the specimen did not permit of an accurate determination 
of the precise relations of the chorionic vesicle to the ovary. We shall 
therefore in the following discussion refer only to those cases in which such 
determination was possible, referring the reader for the details of other 
cases to the paper by Kelly and MTlroy. 
I.—Case of C. van Tussenbrcek. 
The “ ovisac ” in this instance was a reddish brown mass about 
the size of a small plum, and it occupied the greater part of the 
right ovary. The Fallopian tube was in no way attached to the ovary, 
and being normal was obviously not the primary seat of implantation 
of the ovum. The mass representing the ovisac had everywhere a 
smooth surface like that of the rest of the ovary, but at the pole opposite 
the pedicle there was a small rupture from which hung a shred of blood 
clot. A section across the ovisac and surrounding tissue, and passing- 
through the point of rupture, showed a chorionic vesicle imbedded 
in fibrinous masses, and enclosed in a thin envelope of ovarian 
L 
