One is strongly tempted by the foregoing comparison to speculate a little as to whether the reproductive organs of the Cubomedusæ, which lie _in_ the stomach pockets and are generally supposed to be endodermal, may not bear some closer relation to those of the Trachomedusæ, which lie “in the course of” the radial canals (Lang’s Text-book) and by common consent are ectodermal. And while we are being led by facts such as those just mentioned above to wonder just a little whether after all the position of the Cubomedusæ among the Acraspeda is so firmly assured--doubting some, yet in the frame of mind of one who “fears a doubt as wrong”--the velarium suggests itself as another point in question. Haeckel does not hesitate to state emphatically that the velarium of the Cubomedusæ and the velum of the Craspedote medusæ are only analogous, but the reasons that he gives (sie sind unabhängig von einander entstanden, und ihre Structur ist zwar ähnlich, aber keineswegs identisch; namentlich das Verhalten zum Nervenring ist wesentlich verschieden: System, p. 426) somehow do not produce so much impression upon one as the very velum-like appearance of the velarium itself. The origin from the fusion of marginal lobes is not as yet a matter of observation, and the relation to the nerve ring is not essentially different from that of the velum to the lower (_i. e._ inner) nerve ring in the Craspedotæ. The four frenula and the diverticula from the gastro-vascular system seem to be the chief differences in structure after all, and these Haeckel evidently did not think worth mentioning. This speculation, as to the possible relation of the Cubomedusæ to such forms of the veiled medusæ as Liriope, though it may be very tempting, is scarcely fruitful enough to repay much effort on the part of either reader or writer. The whole subject must remain uncertain until the facts of the development of the Cubomedusæ are known.