What are the true homologies of the generative ducts of Lepidosteus, which are continuous with the generative glands, is somewhat doubtful. It is very probable that they may represent the similarly functioning ducts of other Ganoids, but that they have undergone further changes as to their anterior extremities.
It is, on the other hand, possible that their generative ducts are the same structures as those ducts of Osseous fishes, which are continuous with the generative organs. These latter ducts are perhaps related to the abdominal pores, and had best be considered in connection with these; but a completely satisfactory answer to the questions which arise in reference to them can only be given by a study of their development.
In the Cyclostomes the generative products pass out by an abdominal pore, which communicates with the peritoneal cavity by two short tubes[38], and which also receives the ducts of the kidneys.
Gegenbaur suggests that these are to be looked upon as Müllerian ducts, and as therefore developed from the segmental ducts of the kidneys. Another possible view is that they are the primitive external openings of a pair of segmental organs. In Selachians there are usually stated to be a pair of abdominal pores. In Scyllium I have only been able to find, on each side, a large deep pocket opening to the exterior, but closed below towards the peritoneal cavity, so that in it there seem to be no abdominal pores[39]. In the Greenland Shark (Læmargus Borealis) Professor Turner (Journal of Anat. and Phys. Vol. VIII.) failed to find either oviduct or vas deferens, but found a pair of large open abdominal pores, which he believes serve to carry away the generative products of both sexes. Whether the so-called abdominal pores of Selachians usually end blindly as in Scyllium, or, as is commonly stated, open into the body-cavity, there can be no question that they are homologous with true abdominal powers.
The blind pockets of Scyllium appear very much like the remains of primitive involutions from the exterior, which might easily be supposed to have formed the external opening of a pair of segmental organs, and this is probably the true meaning of abdominal pores. The presence of abdominal pores in all Ganoids in addition to true genital ducts and of these pockets or abdominal pores in Selachians, which are almost certainly homologous with the abdominal pores of Ganoids and Cyclostomes, and also occur in addition to true Müllerian ducts, speak strongly against the view that the abdominal pores have any relation to Müllerian ducts. Probably therefore the abdominal pores of the Cyclostomous fishes (which seem to be of the same character as other abdominal pores) are not to be looked on as rudimentary Müllerian ducts.
We next come to the question which I reserved while speaking of the kidneys of Osseous fishes, as to the meaning of their genital ducts.
In the female Salmon and the male and female Eel, the generative products are carried to the exterior by abdominal pores, and there are no true generative ducts. In the case of most other Osseous fish there are true generative ducts which are continuous with the investment of the generative organs[40] and have generally, though not always, an opening or openings independent of the ureter close behind the rectum, but no abdominal pores are present. It seems, therefore, that in Osseous fish the generative ducts are complementary to abdominal pores, which might lead to the view that the generative ducts were formed by a coalescence of the investment of the generative glands with the short duct of abdominal pore.
Against this view there are, however, the following facts:
(1) In the cases of the salmon and the eel it is perfectly true that the abdominal pore exactly corresponds with the opening of the genital duct in other Osseous fishes, but the absence of genital ducts in these cases must rather be viewed, as Vogt and Pappenheim (loc. cit.) have already insisted, as a case of degeneration than of a primitive condition. The presence of genital ducts in the near allies of the Salmonidæ, and even in the male salmon, are conclusive proofs of this. If we admit that the presence of an abdominal pore in Salmonidæ is merely a result of degeneration, it obviously cannot be used as an argument for the complementary nature of abdominal pores and generative ducts.
(2) Hyrtl (Denkschriften der k. Akad. Wien, Vol. 1) states that in Mormyrus oxyrynchus there is a pair of abdominal pores in addition to true generative ducts. If his statements are correct, we have a strong argument against the generative ducts of Osseous fishes being related to abdominal pores. For though this is the solitary instance of the presence of both a genital opening and abdominal pores known to me in Osseous fishes, yet we have no right to assume that the abdominal pores of Mormyrus are not equivalent to those of Ganoids and Selachians. It must be admitted, with Gegenbaur, that embryology alone can elucidate the meaning of the genital ducts of Osseous fishes.