If embryology gives no certain sound as to the questions just raised with reference to the body cavity, still less is it to be hoped that the remaining questions with reference to the origin of the mesoblast can be satisfactorily answered. It is clear, in the first place, from an inspection of the summary given above, that the process of development of the mesoblast is, in all the higher forms, very much abbreviated and modified. Not only is its differentiation relatively deferred, but it does not in most cases originate, as it must have done to start with, as a more or less continuous sheet, split off from parts of one or both the primary layers. It originates in most cases from the hypoblast, and although the considerations already urged preclude us from laying very great stress on this mode of origin, yet the derivation of the mesoblast from the walls of archenteric outgrowths suggests the view that the whole, or at any rate the greater part, of the mesoblast primitively arose by a process of histogenic differentiation from the walls of the archenteron or rather from diverticula of these walls. This view, which was originally put forward by myself (No. 260), appears at first sight very improbable, but if the statement of the Hertwigs (No. 270), that there is a large development of a hypoblastic muscular system in the Actinozoa, is well founded, it cannot be rejected as impossible. Lankester (No. 279), on the other hand, has urged that the mode of origin of the mesoblast in the Echinodermata is more primitive; and that the amoeboid cells which here give rise to the muscular and connective tissues represent cells which originally arose from the whole inner surface of the epiblast. It is, however, to be noted that even in the Echinodermata the amoeboid cells actually arise from the _hypoblast_, and their mode of origin may, therefore, be used to support the view that the main part of the muscular system of higher types is derived from the primitive hypoblast. The great changes which have taken place in the development of the mesoblast would be more intelligible on this view than on the view that the major part of the mesoblast primitively originated from the epiblast. The presence of food-yolk is much more frequent in the hypoblast than in the epiblast; and it is well known that a large number of the changes in early development are caused by food-yolk. If, therefore, the mesoblast has been derived from the hypoblast, many more changes might be expected to have been introduced into its early development than if it had been derived from the epiblast. At the same time the hypoblastic origin of the mesoblast would assist in explaining how it has come about that the development of the nervous system is almost always much less modified than that of the mesoblast, and that the nervous system is not, as might, on the grounds of analogy, have been anticipated, as a rule secondarily developed in the mesoblast.