In all the members of the first class, viz. "_Amphioxus_," the "Lamprey," the "Sturgeon," and the "Batrachians," the epiblast becomes continuous with the hypoblast at the so-called "anus of Rusconi," and the alimentary canal, potentially in all and actually in the Sturgeon (vide Kowalevsky, Owsjannikow, and Wagner, _Bulletin der Acad. d. St Petersbourg_, Vol. XIV. 1870, "Entwicklung der Störe"), communicates freely at its extreme hind end with the neural canal. The same is the case in the Dog-fish. In these, when the folding in to form the alimentary canal on the one hand, and the neural on the other, takes place, the two foldings unite at the corner, where the epiblast and hypoblast are in continuity, and place the two tubes, the neural and alimentary, in free communication with each other[14]. Footnote 14: This has been already made out by Kowalevsky, "Würmern u. Arthropoden," _loc. cit._ There is, however, nothing corresponding with the "anus of Rusconi," which merely indicates the position of the involution of the digestive canal, and subsequently completely closes up, though it nearly coincides in position with the true anus in the Batrachians, &c. This remarkable point of similarity between the Dog-fish's development and the normal mode of development in the first class (the holoblastic) of vertebrates, renders it quite clear that the continuity of the epiblast and hypoblast in the Dogfish is really the remnant of a more primitive condition, when the alimentary canal was formed by an involution. Besides the continuity between neural and alimentary canals, we have other remnants of the primitive involution. Amongst these the most marked is the formation of the embryonic rim, which is nothing less than the commencement of an involution. Its form is due to the flattened, sheet-like condition of the germ. In the mode in which the alimentary canal is closed in front I shall shew there are indications of the primitive mode of formation of the alimentary canal; and in certain peculiarities of the anus, which I shall speak of later, we have indications of the primitive anus of Rusconi; and finally, in the general growth of the epiblast (small cells of the upper pole of the Batrachian egg) over the yolk (lower pole of the Batrachian egg), we have an example of the manner in which the primitive involution, to form the alimentary canal, invariably disappears when the quantity of yolk in an egg becomes very great. I believe that in the Dog-fish we have before our eyes one of the steps by which a direct mode of formation comes to be substituted for an _in_direct one by involution. We find, in fact, in the Dog-fish, that the cells from which are derived the mesoblast and hypoblast come to occupy their final position in the primitive arrangement of the cells during segmentation, and not by a subsequent and secondary involution.