(161) H. Dutrochet. “Recherches s. l. enveloppes du fœtus.” Phil. Trans., Paris, Vol. VIII. 1816.
(162) W. K. Parker. “On the skull of the common Snake.” Phil. Trans., Vol. 169, Part II. 1878.
(163) H. Rathke. Entwick. d. Natter. Königsberg, 1839.
Chelonia.
(164) "L. Agassiz. Contributions to the Natural History of the United States, Vol. II. 1857. Embryology of the Turtle.
(165) W. K. Parker. “On the development of the skull and nerves in the green Turtle.” Proc. of the Roy. Soc., Vol. XXVIII. 1879. Vide also Nature, April 14, 1879, and Challenger Reports, Vol. I. 1880.
(166) H. Rathke. Ueb. d. Entwicklung d. Schildkröten. Braunschweig, 1848.
Crocodilia.
(167) H. Rathke. Ueber die Entwicklung d. Krokodile. Braunschweig, 1866.
[71] Kupffer and Benecke (No. [154]) give a very different account from the above of the early Lacertilian development, more especially in what concerns the so-called neurenteric passage. They believe this structure to be closed below, and to form therefore a blind sack open externally. The open end of this sack they regard as the blastopore—an interpretation which accords with my own, but they regard the sack as the rudiment of the allantois, and hold that it is equivalent to the invaginated archenteron of Amphioxus. I need scarcely say that I believe Kupffer and Benecke to have made a mistake in denying the existence of the ventral opening of this organ. Kupffer in a subsequent paper (No. [155]) states that my descriptions of the structure of this organ do not correspond with the fact. I have perfect confidence in leaving the decision of this point to future observers, and may say that my observations have already been fully confirmed by Strahl (No. [160]), who has also added some observations on the later stages to which I shall hereafter have occasion to allude.
[72] Owing to the difficulty of procuring material I have only been able to prepare the two sets of sections just described, and in the absence of a fuller series there are some points in the interpretation of the sections which must remain doubtful.
[73] This figure was drawn for me by Professor Haddon.
[74] It is very probable that in those Ophidia in which traces of limbs are still preserved, that more conspicuous traces would be found in the embryos than in the adults.
[75] Vide Agassiz (No. [164]), Kupffer and Benecke (No. [154]), and Parker (No. [165]).