32 BULLETIN OF THE 
A fourth difference, which I do not remember to have seen mentioned, 
concerns the position of the sexual glands. . In Endoprocta they arise on 
the polypide and are connected with the atrium by a special duct. In 
Ectoprocta they arise on some part of the body wall. In all cases, how- 
ever, they arise from the mesenchymatous tissue, or its equivalent, the 
celomic epithelium. The exact position is not significant, for even 
within the group of Phylactolemata we find the testis arising sometimes 
on the funiculus (Plumatella), sometimes on the body wall (Cristatella), 
and in neither case at the same place with the ova. 
On the other hand, the resemblances between Ectoprocta and Endo- 
procta are striking: in both a curved alimentary tract, with tentacles 
of similar histological structure ; in both, an atrium originating in the 
same manner; the central nervous system in both alike in position, 
form, structure, and development ; in both the polypide originating in 
comparable ways, involving the same problem of the relation of the germ 
layers to the organs of the bud. Moreover, there must remain unmen- 
tioned many minor resemblances which individually are not very signifi- 
cant, but which, occurring together, furnish a most powerful argument to 
the mind of one studying the animals themselves. 
. Hatschek’s view seems to me, therefore, untenable, and it remains to 
inquire whether the Bryozoa have been derived, accompanied by degen- 
eration, from an Annelidan ancestry, through Gephyrean-like forms,’ or 
whether they represent a persisting low type. As we have seen, the 
first hypothesis must be relinquished, if it can be shown that the Endo- 
procta are the more ancestral type. 
In any group of sessile, colonial animals, we should expect the more 
ancestral type to retain more distinctly its individuality, to possess in a 
more marked degree features belonging to a free, non-colonial life, and 
in a less marked degree those belonging to a sessile, colonial one. Thus 
in its development the group will lose certain characters and gain cer- 
tain others. A well marked individuality accompanied by a simple 
1 As is well known, Hatschek (’83, p. 69) has long maintained that Phoronis and 
the Sipunculacex have not been derived from Annelids as the Echiurida have, but 
from unsegmented ancestors; and this view has become very widely accepted. 
Ehlers, however, seems to adhere to the older view. Whatever the truth may be 
in regard to this matter, the validity of my argument based on embryology and 
comparative anatomy concerning the absence of close relationship between Pho- 
ronis and Bryozoa is not affected. 
2 Lang (’88) has shown, by an instructive analysis, that in sessile animals loco- 
motor and sense organs, the nervous system, and the musculature tend to degener- 
ate, and that the tentacles and protective coverings become more important. 
