If this opening is viewed, as is generally done, as really being the mouth in some cases and the anus in others, it becomes very difficult to believe that the blastopore can in all cases represent the same structure. In a single branch of the animal kingdom it sometimes forms the mouth and sometimes the anus: thus for instance in Lumbricus it is the mouth (according to Kowalevsky), in Palæmon (Bobretzky) the anus. Is it credible that the mouth and anus have become changed, the one for the other?
If, on the other hand, we accept the view that the blastopore never becomes either the one or the other of these openings, it is, I think, possible to account for its corresponding in position with the mouth in some cases or the anus in others.
That it would soon come to correspond either with the mouth or anus (probably with the earliest formed of these in the embryo), wherever it was primitively situated, follows from the great simplification which would be effected by its doing so. This simplification consists in the greater facility with which the fresh opening of either mouth or anus could be made where the epiblast and hypoblast were in continuity than elsewhere. Even a change of correspondence from the position of the mouth to that of the anus or _vice versa_ could occur. The mode in which this might happen is exemplified by the case of the Selachians. I pointed out in the course of this paper how the final point of envelopment of the yolk became altered in Selachians so as to cease to correspond with the anus of Rusconi; in other words, how the position of the blastopore became changed. In such a case, if the yolk material again became diminished, the blastopore would correspond in position with neither mouth nor anus, and the causes which made it correspond in position with the anus before, would again operate, and make it correspond in position perhaps with the mouth. Thus the blastopore might absolutely cease to correspond in position with the anus and come to correspond in position with the mouth.
It is hardly possible to help believing that the blastopore primitively represented a mouth. It may perhaps have lost this function owing to an increase of food yolk in the ovum preventing its being possible for the blastopore to develop directly into a mouth, and necessitating the formation of a fresh mouth. If such were the case, there would be no reason why the blastopore should ever again serve functionally as a mouth in the descendants of the animal which developed this fresh mouth.