[10] In the asexually produced buds of Ascidians the atrial cavity appears, with the exception of the external opening, to be formed from the primitive branchial sack. In the buds of Pyrosoma however it arises independently. These peculiarities in the buds cannot weigh against the embryonic evidence that the atrial cavity arises from involutions of the epiblast, and they may perhaps be partially explained by the fact that in the formation of the visceral clefts outgrowths of the branchial sack meet the atrial involutions.
[11] From Todaro’s latest paper (No. [39]) it would seem the segmentation cavity has very peculiar relations.
[12] Brooks takes a very different view of the nature of the parts in Salpa. He says, No. [7], p. 322, “The atrium of Salpa, when first observed, was composed of two broad lateral atria within the body cavity, one on each side of the branchial sack, and a very small mid-atrium.... The lateral atria do not however, as in most Tunicata, remain connected with the mid-atrium, and unite with the wall of the branchial sack to form the branchial slits, but soon become entirely separated, and the two walls of each unite so as to form a broad sheet of tissue, which soon splits up to form the muscular bands of the branchial sack.” Again, p. 324, “During the changes which have been described as taking place in the lateral atria, the mid-atrium has increased in size.... The branchial and atrial tunics now unite upon each side, so that the sinus is converted into a tube which communicates, at its posterior end, with the heart and perivisceral sinus, and at the anterior end with the neural sinus. This tube is the gill.... The centres of the two regions upon the sides of the gill, where these two tissues have become united, are now absorbed, so that a single long and narrow branchial slit is produced on each side of the gill. The branchial cavity is thus thrown into communication with the atrium, and the upper surface of the latter now unites with the outer tunic, and the external atrial opening is formed by absorption.”
The above description would imply that the atrial cavity is a space lined by mesoblast, a view which would upset the whole morphology of the Ascidians. Salensky’s account, which implies only an immense reduction in the size of the atrial cavity as compared with other types, appears to me far more probable. The lateral atria of Brooks appear to be simply parts of the body cavity, and have certainly no connection with the lateral atria of simple Ascidians or Pyrosoma.
The observations of Todaro upon Salpa (No. [38]) are very remarkable, and illustrated by beautifully engraved plates. His interpretations do not however appear quite satisfactory. The following is a brief statement of some of his results.
During segmentation there arises a layer of small superficial cells (epiblast) and a central layer of larger cells, which becomes separated from the former by a segmentation cavity, except at the pole adjoining the free end of the brood-pouch. At this point the epiblast cells become invaginated into the central cells and form the alimentary tract, while the primitive central cells remain as the mesoblast. A fold arises from the epiblast which Todaro compares to the vertebrate amnion, but the origin of it is unfortunately not satisfactorily described. The folds of the amnion project towards the placenta, and enclose a cavity which, as the folds never completely meet, is permanently open to the maternal blood sinus. This cavity corresponds with the cavity of the true amnion of higher Vertebrates. It forms the cavity of the placenta already described. Between the two folds of the amnion is a cavity corresponding with the vertebrate false amnion. A structure regarded by Todaro as the notochord is formed on the neck, connecting the involution of the alimentary tract with the exterior. It has only a very transitory existence.
In the later stages the segmentation cavity disappears and a true body cavity is formed by a split in the mesoblast.
Todaro’s interpretations, and in part his descriptions also, both with reference to the notochord and amnion, appear to me quite inadmissible. About some other parts of his descriptions it is not possible to form a satisfactory judgment. He has recently published a short paper on this subject (No. [39]) preliminary to a larger memoir, which is very difficult to understand in the absence of plates. He finds however in the placenta various parts which he regards as homologous with the decidua vera and reflexa of Mammalia.
[13] It is not within the scope of this work to enter into details with reference to the process of budding. The reader is referred on this head more especially to the papers of Huxley (No. [16]) and Kowalevsky (No. [22]) on Pyrosoma, of Salensky (No. [35]) on Salpa, and Kowalevsky (No. [21]) on Ascidians generally. It is a question of very great interest how budding first arose, and then became so prevalent in these degenerate types of Chordata. It is possible to suppose that budding may have commenced by the division of embryos at an early stage of development, and have gradually been carried onwards by the help of natural selection till late in life. There is perhaps little in the form of budding of the Ascidians to support this view—the early budding of Didemnum as described by Gegenbaur being the strongest evidence for it—but it fits in very well with the division of the embryo in Lumbricus trapezoides described by Kleinenberg, and with the not unfrequent occurrence of double monsters in Vertebrata which may be regarded as a phenomenon of a similar nature (Rauber). The embryonic budding of Pyrosoma, which might perhaps be viewed as supporting the hypothesis, appears to me not really in favour of it; since the Cyathozooid of Pyrosoma is without doubt an extremely modified form of zooid, which has obviously been specially developed in connection with the peculiar reproduction of the Pyrosomidæ.
[14] The atrial spaces form somewhat doubtful exceptions to the rule.