The asymmetry of the gastrula or pseudo-gastrula in Cyclostomes, Amphibians, Elasmobranchii and, I believe, Osseous Fishes, is to be explained by the form of the vertebrate body. In Amphioxus, where the small amount of food-yolk present is distributed uniformly, there is no reason why the invagination and resulting gastrula should not be symmetrical. In other vertebrates, where more food-yolk is present, the shape and structure of the body render it necessary for the food-yolk to be stored away on the ventral side of the alimentary canal. This, combined with the unsymmetrical position of the anus, which primitively corresponds in position with the blastopore or anus of Rusconi, causes the asymmetry of the gastrula invagination, since it is not possible for the part of the ovum which will become the ventral wall of the alimentary canal, and which is loaded with food-yolk, to be invaginated in the same fashion as the dorsal wall. From the asymmetry, so caused, follow a large number of features in vertebrate development, which have been worked out in some detail in my paper already quoted[160]. Footnote 160: _Quart. Journ. of Micr. Science_, July, 1875. [This Edition, No. VI.] Prof. Haeckel, in a paper recently published[161], appears to imply that because I do not find absolute invagination in Elasmobranchii, I therefore look upon Elasmobranchii as militating against his Gastræa theory. I cannot help thinking that Prof. Haeckel must have somewhat misunderstood my meaning. The importance of the Gastræa theory has always appeared to me to consist not in the fact that an actual ingrowth of certain cells occurs--an ingrowth which might have many different meanings[162]--but in the fact that the types of early development of all animals can be easily derived from that of the typical gastrula. I am perfectly in accordance with Professor Haeckel in regarding the type of Elasmobranch development to be a simple derivative from that of the gastrula, although believing it to be without any true ingrowth or invagination of cells. Footnote 161: "Die Gastrula u. Eifurchung d. Thiere," _Jenaische Zeitschrift_, Vol. IX. Footnote 162: For instance, in Crustaceans it does not in some cases appear certain whether an invagination is the typical gastrula invagination, or only an invagination by which, at a period subsequent to the gastrula invagination, the hind gut is frequently formed. Professor Haeckel[163] in the paper just referred to published his view upon the mutual relationships of the various vertebrate blastoderms. In this paper, which appeared but shortly after my own[164] on the same subject, he has put forward views which differ from mine in several important details. Some of these bear upon the nature of food-yolk; and it appears to me that Professor Haeckel's scheme of development is incompatible with the view that the food-yolk in meroblastic eggs is the homologue of part of the hypoblast of the holoblastic eggs.