The conclusions to be drawn from the above description may be summed up as follows. In all the Siphonophora, so far observed, the starting point for further development is a typical ciliated two-layered planula. The inner layer or hypoblast is mainly formed of large nutritive cells. From these cells an epithelial hypoblastic layer becomes secondarily differentiated, the exact relations of which differ somewhat in the various types. The nutritive cells themselves do not appear to become directly converted into the permanent hypoblastic tissues. The development of the adult from the planula commences by the thickening of the epiblastic layer, usually at one pole (the future proximal or aboral pole), and the formation at this pole of a series of bud-like structures (in the growth of which both embryonic layers have a share), which become converted into the hydrophyllia, nectocalyces etc. The main oral part of the planula becomes generally converted into the polypite, though in some instances (Crystalloides) it remains as a yolk-sack, and only secondarily gives rise to a polypite. Two very different views have been taken as to the nature of the various component parts of the Siphonophora, and the embryological evidence has been appealed to by both sides in confirmation of their views. By Huxley and Metschnikoff the various parts--nectocalyces, hydrophyllia, hydrocysts, polypites, generative gonophores etc. are regarded as simple organs, while by Leuckart, Haeckel, Claus etc. they are regarded as so many different individuals forming a compound stock. The difference between these two views is not merely as to the definition of an individual[79]. The question really is, are these parts originally derived by the modification of complete zooids like the gonophores and trophosomes of the fixed Hydrozoa stocks, or are they structures derived from the modification of the tentacles or some other parts of a single zooid? [79] From the expressions used by Huxley, _Anatomy of Invertebrated Animals_, p. 149, it appears to me possible that his opposition to Leuckart's view is mainly as to the nature of the individual. [FIG. 77. LARVA OF CRYSTALLOIDES, (After Haeckel.) _h.ph._ hydrophyllium; _h._ hydrocyst; _t._ tentacle; _pp._ pneumatophore; _po._ polypite; _yk._ yolk-sack.] The difficulty of deciding this point on embryological evidence depends on the fact that ontologically a tentacle and a true bud arise in the same way, viz. as papilliform outgrowths containing prolongations of both the primitive germinal layers. The balance of evidence is nevertheless in my opinion in favour of regarding the Siphonophora as compound stocks, and the views of Claus on this subject (_Zoologie_, p. 271) appear to me the most satisfactory.