The other possibility is that the notochord is primitively a true _hypoblastic_ structure which has only by adaptation become an apparently _mesoblastic_ one in the higher vertebrates. In favour of this view are the following considerations: (1) That this is the undoubtedly natural interpretation of the sections. (2) That the notochord becomes separated from the hypoblast after the latter has acquired its typical structure, and differs in that respect from the two lateral sheets of mesoblast, which are formed coincidently with the hypoblast by a homogeneous mass of cells becoming differentiated into two distinct layers. (3) That the first mode of looking at the matter really proves too much, since it is clear that by the same method of reasoning we could prove the mesoblastic origin of any organ derived from the hypoblast and budded off into the mesoblast. We would merely have to assert that it was really a mass of mesoblast budded off from the hypoblast rather later than the remainder of the mesoblast. Still, it must be admitted that the first view I have suggested is a possible, not to say a probable one, though the mode of arguing by which it can be upheld may be rather dangerous if generally applied. We ought not, however, for that reason necessarily to reject it in the present case. As Mr Ray Lankester pointed out to me, if we accept the hypoblastic origin of the notochord, we should find a partial parallel to it in the endostyle of Tunicates, and it is perhaps interesting to note in reference to it that the notochord is the only _unsegmented_ portion of the axial skeleton. Whether the strong _à priori_ difficulties of the hypoblastic origin of the notochord are sufficient to counterbalance the natural interpretation of my sections, cannot, I think, be decided from the single case of the Dog-fish. It is to be hoped that more complete investigations of the Lamprey, &c., may throw further light upon the question. Whichever view of the primitive origin of the notochord is the true one, its apparent origin is very instructive as illustrating the possible way in which an organ might come to change the layer to which it primarily belonged. If the notochord is a true mesoblastic structure, it is easy to be seen how, by becoming separated from the hypoblast a little later than is the case with the Dog-fish, its mesoblastic origin would become lost; while if, on the other hand, it is primitively a hypoblastic structure, we see from higher vertebrates how, by becoming separated from the hypoblast rather earlier than in the Dog-fish, viz. at the same time as the rest of the mesoblast, its primitive derivation from the hypoblast has become concealed. The view seemingly held by many embryologists of the present day, that an organ, when it was primitively derived from one layer, can never be apparently formed in another layer, appears to me both unreasonable on _à priori_ grounds, and also unsupported by facts.