It is very possible that the formation of the mesoblast as two masses, one on each side of the middle line as occurs in Selachians, and which as I pointed out in the paper quoted above also takes place in some worms, is a remnant of the primitive formation of the body-cavity as paired outgrowth of the alimentary canal. This would also explain the fact that in Selachians the body-cavity consists at first of two separate portions, one on each side of the alimentary canal, which only subsequently become united below and converted into a single cavity (vide _loc. cit._[25], Plate XIV, fig. 8_b_, _pp_). Footnote 25: Pl. 3 of this edition, fig. 8_b_, _pp_. In the Echinoderms we find instances where the body-cavity and water-vascular system arise as an outgrowth from the alimentary canal, which subsequently becomes constricted off from the latter (Asteroids and Echinoids), together with other instances (Ophiura, Synapta) where the water-vascular system and body-cavity are only secondarily formed in a solid mass of mesoblast originally split off from the walls of the alimentary canal. These instances shew us how easily a change of this kind may take place, and remove the difficulty of understanding why in vertebrates the body-cavity never communicates with the alimentary. The last point which I wish to call attention to is the blastopore or anus of Rusconi. This is the primitive opening by which the alimentary canal communicates with the exterior, or, in other words, the opening of the alimentary involution. It is a distinctly marked structure in Amphioxus and the Batrachians, and is also found in a less well-marked form in the Selachians; in Birds no trace of it is any longer to be seen. In all those vertebrates in which it is present, it closes up and does not become the anus of the adult. The final anus nevertheless corresponds very closely in position with the anus of Rusconi. Mr Lankester has shewn (_Quart. Journ. of Micro. Science_ for April, 1875) that in invertebrates as well as vertebrates the blastopore almost invariably closes up. It nevertheless corresponds as a rule very nearly in position either with the mouth or with the anus. If this opening is viewed, as is generally done, as really being the mouth in some cases and the anus in others, it becomes very difficult to believe that the blastopore can in all cases represent the same structure. In a single branch of the animal kingdom it sometimes forms the mouth and sometimes the anus: thus for instance in Lumbricus it is the mouth (according to Kowalevsky), in Palæmon (Bobretzky) the anus. Is it credible that the mouth and anus have become changed, the one for the other? If, on the other hand, we accept the view that the blastopore never becomes either the one or the other of these openings, it is, I think, possible to account for its corresponding in position with the mouth in some cases or the anus in others.