thickened, and apparently highly injected with blood. On opening the cavity I found it throughout thickly coated with slimy or mucal secretion (the only uterus found by me in this state.) I now extended my examination in front of the womb to the posterior part of the mammae, and in doing so discovered a small gelatinous mass, about twice the size of a pea. On a closer inspection, it appeared to be retained in a thin transparent tube. I watched the substance narrowly and could distinctly perceive the rudiments of an animal. The feet were not developed, but pulsation and motion were not only observed by me, but by two of the men with me, both exclaiming "look at the little animal!" although I feel convinced that they did not know what I was searching for. There was not time to examine further into its state. I carefully removed the uterus, the apparent embryo and the mammae, and put it in a wide-mouthed bottle with some spirits, and gave it in charge of the seaman who was to carry a portion of the animal for the dinner of that day. It was placed in a canvas bag, but on crossing a Deep watercourse he had the misfortune to break the bottle, which he never mentioned until the following day. The contents soon dried up and became an uniform mass. The intense heat had rendered it so firm that nothing could be made of it; all the gelatinous parts had adhered so firmly to the bag, that I was compelled to abandon it. My object was to ascertain if there was a communication in a greater state of development between the womb and posterior part of the mammae, during the period of gestation; and I was fancying I had arrived at some conclusion, but all my hopes were destroyed by one fatal smash! So many theories have been formed on that point--that to advance this as a fact, would be treading too firmly on tender ground. At the first view of the gelatinous mass I seriously considered whether it could have been a gland, and whether the pulsation might have been communicated from muscular twitchings; I took my eye off the substance for some time, and on again looking at it, felt more confident than ever, that it was not a glandular substance. Its peculiar configuration and want of solidity proved it indeed not to be gland; its motion, on touching it with the point of the finger, was so much that of an embryonic animal, that I at once, without further investigation, pronounced it a kangaroo. "Might not the tube I discovered convey the animal to the posterior part of the mammae, where it might become attached to the nipple in an inverted state? At any rate it was not in the body of the uterus. Had the mass been saved I should have taken one more look of inquiry without attempting to alter its structure, and left the matter for the judicious decision of some of the professors of comparative anatomy at home."