(2) A second argument is founded on the supposed derivation of the mesoblast in Amphioxus from both epiblast and hypoblast. Kowalevsky's account (on which apparently Prof. Haeckel's[212] statements are based) appears to me, however, too vague, and his observations too imperfect, for much confidence to be placed in his statements on this head. It does not indeed appear to me that the formation of the layers in Amphioxus, till better known, can be used as an argument for any special view about this question.
(3) Professor Haeckel's own observations on the development of Osseous fish form a third argument in support of his views. These observations do not, however, accord with those of the majority of investigators, and not having been made by means of sections, require further confirmation before they can be definitely accepted.
(4) A fourth argument rests on the fact that the various embryonic layers fuse together to form the primitive streak or axis-cord in higher vertebrates. This he thinks proves that the mesoblast is derived from both the primitive layers. The primitive streak has, however, according to my views, quite another significance to that attributed to it by Professor Haeckel[213]; but in any case Professor Kölliker's researches, and on this point my own observations accord with his, appear to me to prove that the fusion which there takes place is only capable of being used as an argument in favour of an epiblastic origin of the mesoblast, and not of its derivation from both epiblast and hypoblast.
The objective arguments in favour of Professor Haeckel's views are not very conclusive, and he himself does not deny that the mesoblast as a rule apparently arises as a single and undivided mass from one of the two primary layers, and only subsequently becomes split into somatic and splanchnic strata. This original fusion and subsequent splitting of the mesoblast is explained by him as a secondary condition, a possibility which cannot by any means be thrown on one side. It seems therefore worth while examining how far the history of the somatic and splanchnic layers of the mesoblast in Elasmobranchii and other Vertebrates accords with the supposition that they were primitively split off from the epiblast and the hypoblast respectively.
It is well to consider first of all what parts of the mesoblast of the body might be expected to be derived from the somatic and splanchnic layers on this view of their origin[214].
From the somatic layer of the mesoblast there would no doubt be formed the whole of the voluntary muscular system of the body, the dermis, the subcutaneous connective tissue, and the connective tissue between the muscles. It is probable also, though this point is less certain, that the skeleton would be derived from the somatic layer. From the splanchnic layer would be formed the connective tissue and muscular layers of the alimentary tract, and possibly also the vascular system.
Turning to the actual development of these parts, the discrepancy between theory and fact becomes very remarkable. From the somatic layer of the mesoblast, part of the voluntary muscular system and the dermis is no doubt derived, but the splanchnic layer supplies the material, not only for the muscular wall of the digestive canal and the vascular system, but also for the whole of the axial skeleton and a great part of the voluntary muscular system of the body, including the first-formed muscles. Though remarkable, it is nevertheless not inconceivable, that the skeleton might be derived from the splanchnic mesoblast, but it is very difficult to understand how there could be formed from it a part of the voluntary muscular system of the body indistinguishably fused with part of the muscular system derived from the somatopleure. No fact in my investigations comes out more clearly than that a great part of the voluntary muscular system is formed from the splanchnic layer of the mesoblast, yet this fact presents a most serious difficulty to the view that the somatic and splanchnic layers of the mesoblast in Vertebrates are respectively derived from the epiblast and hypoblast.
In spite, therefore, of general à priori considerations of a very convincing kind which tell in favour of the double origin of the mesoblast, this view is supported by so few objective facts, and there exists so powerful an array of facts against it, that at present, at least, it seems impossible to maintain it. The full strength of the facts against it will appear more fully in a review of the present state of our knowledge as to the development of the mesoblast in the different groups.
To this I now pass.
In a paper on the “Early stages of Development in Vertebrates[215]” a short resumé was given of the development of the mesoblast throughout the animal kingdom, which it may be worth while repeating here with a few additions. So far as we know at present, the mesoblast is derived from the hypoblast in the following groups: