Over the past 50 years and more, many models have been proposed to explain
how the nervous system is initially induced and how it becomes subdivided i
nto gross regions such as forebrain, midbrain, hindbrain and spinal cord. A
mong these models is the 2-signal model of Nieuwkoop & Nigtevecht (1954), w
ho suggested that an initial signal ('activation') from the organiser both
neuralises and specifies the forebrain, while later signals ('transformatio
n') from the same region progressively caudalise portions of this initial t
erritory. An opposing idea emerged from the work of Otto Mangold (1933) and
other members of the Spemann laboratory: 2 or more distinct organisers, em
itting different signals, were proposed to be responsible for inducing the
head, trunk and tail regions. Since then, evidence has accumulated that sup
ports one or the other model, but it has been very difficult to distinguish
between them. Recently, a considerable body of work from mouse embryos has
been interpreted as favouring the latter model, and as suggesting that a '
head organiser', required for the induction of the forebrain, is spatially
separate from the classic organiser (Hensen's node). An extraembryonic tiss
ue, the 'anterior visceral endoderm' (AVE), was proposed to be the source o
f forebrain-inducing signals. It is difficult to find tissues that are dire
ctly equivalent embryologically or functionally to the AVE in other vertebr
ates, which led some (e.g. Kessel, 1998) to propose that mammals have evolv
ed a new way of patterning the head. We will present evidence from the chic
k embryo showing that the hypoblast is embryologically and functionally equ
ivalent to the mouse AVE. Like the latter, the hypoblast also plays a role
in head development. However, it does not act like a true organiser. It ind
uces pre-neural and pre-forebrain markers, but only transiently. Further de
velopment of neural and forebrain phenotypes requires additional signals no
t provided by the hypoblast. In addition, the hypoblast plays a role in dir
ecting cell movements in the adjacent epiblast. These movements distance th
e future forebrain territory from the developing organiser (Hensen's node),
and we suggest that this is a mechanism to protect the forebrain from caud
alising signals from the node. These mechanisms are consistent with all the
findings obtained from the mouse to date. We conclude that the mechanisms
responsible for setting up the forebrain and more caudal regions of the ner
vous system are probably similar among different classes of higher vertebra
tes. Moreover, while reconciling the two main models, our findings provide
stronger support for Nieuwkoop's ideas than for the concept of multiple org
anisers, each inducing a distinct region of the CNS.