Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:25:36.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XII.—The Development of the Müllerian Duct of Amphibians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

Gregg Wilson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Last summer I began an investigation of the Müllerian duct of Amphibians at the suggestion of Professor Wiedersheim, to whom I am indebted for most kind advice during the progress of my work, as well as for all the material that I have made use of in the course of it.

I have been able to examine stages in the development of the duct in Rana esculenta, Triton alpestris, Salamandra atra and S. maculosa, Siredon pisciformis (Axolotl), and Desmognathus; but I have paid special attention to Salamandra atra and Axolotl, which have not yet been studied in this connection. The Urodeles are easier to work with than the Anura, owing to the comparatively early formation of the Anlage of the Müllerian duct; and I have found Axolotl to be particularly instructive, as the pronephros and segmental duct persist during the early stages of the formation of the Müllerian duct.

I propose in this paper to describe what I have observed in various stages of the development of these two forms, and to compare the results thus arrived at with the appearances described in the published works on the subject.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , 1897 , pp. 509 - 526
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1897

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

List of Works Quoted in the Paper

Semper, C. “Das Urogenitalsystem der Plagiostomen und seine Bedeutung für das der übrigen Wirbelthiere,” Arb. aus dem zool.-zoot. Institut in Würzburg, Bd. ii., 1875.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. Milnes, and Bles, E. J. “The Development of the Kidneys and Fat-Bodies in the Frog,” Studies from the Biol. Laboratories of the Owens College, vol. ii.Google Scholar
Wittich, ,. “Beiträge zur morphologischen und histologischen Entwickelung der Harn-und Geschlechtswerkzeuge der nackten Amphibien,” Zeitsch. f wiss. Zool., Bd. iv., 1853.Google Scholar
Spengel, J. W. “Die Segmentalorgane der Amphibien,” Verhandlungen der physikalisch-medicinischen Gesellschaft zu Würzburg, Bd. x.Google Scholar
Spengel, J. W. “Das Urogenitalsystem der Amphibien,” Arb. aus d. zool-zoot Institut in Würzburg, Bd. iii., 1876.Google Scholar
Schneider, A. “Ueber die Müller'schen Gänge der Urodelen und Anuren,” Centralbl. für die Medic. Wiss., 1876.Google Scholar
Fürbringer, Max. “Zur Entw. der Amphibienniere,” Heidelberg, 1877.Google Scholar
Fürbringer, Max. “Zur vergleichenden Anatomie und Entwickelungsgeschichte der Excretionsorgane der Vertebraten,” Morph. Jahrb., Bd. iv., 1878.Google Scholar
Kollmann, J. “Ueber Verbindungen zwischen Cœlom und Nephridium,” Basel, 1882.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, C. K. “Zur Entwickelungsgeschichte der Urogenitalorgane bei den Anamnia,” Zeitsch. f. wiss. Zool., Bd. xliv.Google Scholar
Semon, Richard. “Studien über den Bauplan des Urogenitalsystems der Wirbelthiere: dargelegt an der Entwickelung dieses Organsystems bei Ichthyophis glutinosus,” Jena, 1891.Google Scholar
MacBride, E. W. “The Development of the Oviduct in the Frog,” Proc. Camb. Phil Soc., vol. vii.Google Scholar
Jungersen, , Hector, F. E. “Om Udviklingen af den Müller'sche Gang (Œggelederen) hos Padderne,” Copenhagen, 1892.Google Scholar
Kip, M. J. Van Erp Taalman. “Over de Ontwikkeling van de Müller'sche Gang bij Zoogdieren,” Tijdschr. d. Ned. Dierk. Vereen (2), iv.Google Scholar
Burger, H. “Over de Ontwikkeling van de Müller'sche Gang bij de Eend en de Bergeend,” Tijdsch. d. Ned. Dierk. Vereen (2), iv.Google Scholar