I have attempted to reduce the types of development of the mesoblast to six; but owing to the nature of the case it is not always easy to distinguish the first of these from the last four. Of the six types the second will on most hands be admitted to be the most remarkable. The formation of hollow outgrowths of the archenteron, the cavities of which give rise to the body cavity, can only be explained on the supposition that the body cavity of the types in which such outgrowths occur is derived from diverticula cut off from the alimentary tract. The lining epithelium of the diverticula—the peritoneal epithelium—is clearly part of the primitive hypoblast, and this part of the mesoblast is clearly hypoblastic in origin.
In the case of the Chætognatha (Sagitta), Brachiopoda, and Amphioxus, the whole of the mesoblast originates from the walls of the diverticula; while in the Echinodermata the walls of the diverticula only give rise to the vaso-peritoneal epithelium, the remainder of the mesoblast being derived from amœboid cells which spring from the walls of the archenteron before the origin of the vaso-peritoneal outgrowths ([figs. 199] and [210]).
Reserving for the moment the question as to what conclusions can be deduced from the above facts as to the origin of the mesoblast, it is important to determine how far the facts of embryology warrant us in supposing that in the whole of the triploblastic forms the body cavity originated from the alimentary diverticula. There can be but little doubt that the mode of origin of the mesoblast in many Vertebrata, as two solid plates split off from the hypoblast, in which a cavity is secondarily developed, is an abbreviation of the process observable in Amphioxus; but this process approaches in some forms of Vertebrata to the ingrowth of the mesoblast from the lips of the blastopore.
It is, therefore, highly probable that the paired ingrowths of the mesoblast from the lips of the blastopore may have been in the first instance derived from a pair of archenteric diverticula. This process of formation of the mesoblast is, as may be seen by reference to the summary, the most frequent, including as it does the Chætopoda, the Mollusca, the Arthropoda, &c.[133]
While there is no difficulty in the view that the body cavity may have originated from a pair of enteric diverticula in the case of the forms where a body cavity is present, there is a considerable difficulty in holding this view, for forms in which there is no body cavity distinct from the alimentary diverticula.
Of these types the Platyelminthes are the most striking. It is, no doubt, possible that a body cavity may have existed in the Platyelminthes, and become lost; and the case of the Discophora, which in their muscular and connective tissue systems as well as in the absence of a body cavity resemble the Platyelminthes, may be cited in favour of this view, in that, being closely related to the Chætopoda, they are almost certainly descended from ancestors with a true body cavity. The usual view of the primitive character of the Platyelminthes, which has much to support it, is, however, opposed to the idea that the body cavity has disappeared.
If Kowalevsky[134] is right in stating that he has found a form intermediate between the Cœlenterata and the Platyelminthes, there will be strong grounds for holding that the Platyelminthes are, like the Cœlenterata, forms the ancestors of which were not provided with a body cavity.
Perhaps the triploblastica are composed of two groups, viz. (1) a more ancestral group (the Platyelminthes), in which there is no body cavity as distinct from the alimentary, and (2) a group descended from these, in which two of the alimentary diverticula have become separated from the alimentary tract to form a body cavity (remaining triploblastica). However this may be, the above considerations are sufficient to shew how much there is that is still obscure with reference even to the body cavity.
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 amœboid 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 amœboid 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.