Amongst the Physophoridæ there is a considerable range of variation in development; though the variations concern for the most part not very important points. The simplest type hitherto observed is that of Stephanomia (Halistemma) pictum. The segmentation and formation of a two-layered planula ([fig. 76]) take place in the usual way. Between the solid central mass of nutritive hypoblast cells and the epiblast an epithelial hypoblastic layer becomes interposed which undergoes a special thickening at the aboral pole. At this pole a solid involution of epiblast next becomes formed, to which a layer of hypoblast becomes applied. The structure so formed is the rudiment of the pneumatocyst (ep). In the next stage the air-cavity of the pneumatocyst becomes established within the epiblast.
The gastrovascular cavity is formed in the midst of the nutritive hypoblast cells, which then become rapidly absorbed leaving the gastrovascular cavity entirely enclosed by the epithelial layer of hypoblast ([fig. 76] B).
By the above changes the more important organs of the larva have become established. The one end forms the pneumatophore, and the other, the oral part, the polypite. Between the two there is already present the rudiment of a tentacle, and a second tentacle soon becomes formed. The mouth arises as a perforation at the oral end of the larva.
The pneumatophore contains a prolongation of the gastrovascular cavity, the fluid in which bathes the outer hypoblastic wall of the pneumatocyst. It has however no communication with the enclosed cavity of the pneumatocyst. In the later developmental stages the size of the pneumatophore becomes immensely reduced in comparison with the remainder of the larva.
The development of Physophora agrees closely with that of Stephanomia except in one somewhat important point, viz. in the development of a provisional hydrophyllium. This arises as a prominence at the aboral pole, containing a prolongation of the gastrovascular cavity. Between the epiblast and hypoblast of the prominence gelatinous tissue becomes deposited, and the hydrophyllium is thus converted into a large umbrella-like organ enclosing the polypite. The two together have a close resemblance to an ordinary Medusa, the polypite forming the manubrium, and the hydrophyllium the umbrella. The hydrophyllium is eventually thrown off.
An important type of Physophorid development is exemplified in Crystalloides, a genus closely allied to Agalma. In this type the greater part of the original ovum, instead of directly giving rise to the polypite, becomes a kind of yolk-sack, from which the polypite is secondarily budded ([fig. 77], yk). Agalma sarsii is in this respect intermediate between Crystalloides and Physophora. Both these types are remarkable for developing a series of provisional hydrophyllia ([fig. 77], h.ph.). In both genera the first of these develops as in Physophora, and for a long time is the only one functional.
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?
