[431] A deep focus of the rather thick section represented in No. 3 shewed the body much more nearly in the position it occupies in No. 4.
[432] Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte d. Allantois der Müller'schen Gange u. des Afters. Frankfurt, 1874.
[433] Loc. cit.
[434] Jenaische Zeitschrift, Vol. IX. 1875.
[435] Entwicklungsgeschichte d. Unke.
[436] Loc. cit.
[437] Balfour, “Origin and History of Urinogenital Organs of Vertebrates,” Journal of Anat. and Phys. Vol. X., and Monograph on Elasmobranch Fishes. [This edition Nos. VII. and X.]
[438] I am inclined to give up the view I formerly expressed with reference to the head-kidney and segmental duct, viz. “that they were to be regarded as the most anterior segmental tube, the peritoneal opening of which had become divided, and which had become prolonged backwards so as to serve as the duct for the posterior segmental tubes,” and provisionally to accept the Gegenbaur-Fürbringer view which has been fully worked out and ably argued for by Fürbringer (loc. cit. p. 96). According to this view the head-kidney and its duct are to be looked on as the primitive and unsegmented part of the excretory system, more or less similar to the excretory system of many Trematodes and unsegmented Vermes. The segmental tubes I regard as a truly segmental part of the excretory system acquired subsequently.—F. M. B.
[439] In a note on p. 50 of his memoir Fürbringer criticises my description of the mode of growth of the segmental duct. The following is a free translation of what he says: “In Balfour's, as in other descriptions, an account is given of a backward growth, which easily leads to the supposition of a structure formed anteriorly forcing its way through the tissues behind. This is, however, not the case, since, to my knowledge, no author has ever detected a sharp boundary between the growing point of the segmental duct (or Müllerian duct) and the surrounding tissues.” He goes on to say that “the growth in these cases really takes place by a differentiation of tissue along a line in the region of the peritoneal cavity.” Although I fully admit that it would be far easier to homologise the development of the segmental duct in Amphibia and Elasmobranchii according to this view, I must nevertheless vindicate the accuracy of my original account. I have looked over my specimens again, since the appearance of Dr Fürbringer's paper, and can find no evidence of the end of the duct becoming continuous with the adjoining mesoblastic tissues. In the section, before its disappearance, the segmental duct may, so far as I can make out, be seen as a very small but distinct rod, which is much more closely connected with the epiblast than with any other layer. From Gasser's observations on the Wolffian duct in the bird, I am led to conclude that it behaves in the same way as the segmental duct in the Elasmobranchii. I will not deny that it is possible that the growth of the duct takes place by wandering cells, but on this point I have no evidence, and must therefore leave the question an open one.—F. M. B.
[440] Fürbringer, loc. cit.