[120] The above list is somewhat tentative; and future investigations will probably shew that many of the statements at present current about the position of the blastopore are inaccurate. [121] The forms in which the position of the blastopore in relation to the mouth or anus is not known are marked with an asterisk. The forms which have been classed together under the last heading vary considerably in the character of the blastopore. In some cases the fact of its not coinciding either with the mouth or anus appears to be due simply to the presence of a large amount of food-yolk. The cases of the Cephalopoda, of Euaxes, and perhaps of Clepsine and Bonellia, are to be explained in this way: in the case of all these forms, except Bonellia, the blastopore has the form of an elongated slit along the ventral surface. This type of blastopore is characteristic of the Mollusca generally, of the Polyzoa, of the Nematelminthes, and very possibly of the Chætopoda and Discophora. In the Chætognatha (fig. 209 B) the blastopore is situated, so far as can be determined, behind the future anus. In many Decapoda the blastopore is placed behind, but not far from, the anus. In the Chordata it is also placed posteriorly to the anus, and, remarkably enough, remains, in a large number of forms, for some time in connection with the neural tube by a neurenteric canal. The great variations in the character of the gastrula, indicated in the above summary, go far to shew that if the gastrulæ, as we find them in most types, have any ancestral characters, these characters can only be of the most general kind. This may best be shewn by the consideration of a few striking instances. The blastopore in Mollusca has an elongated slit-like form, extending along the ventral surface from the mouth to the anus. In Echinodermata it is a narrow pore, remaining as the anus. In most Chætopoda it is a pore remaining as the mouth, but in some as the anus. In Chordata it is a posteriorly-placed pore, opening into both the archenteron and the neural canal. It is clearly out of the question to explain all these differences as having connection with the characters of ancestral forms. Many of them can only be accounted for as secondary adaptations for the convenience of development.