14 M. SANDER RANG 



other. But we will not argue from this fact ; for, following 

 the example of M. de Blainville, we think that it is not well 

 in any case, to support ourselves upon an observation capable 

 of being set aside as being but a mere anecdote ; we will en- 

 deavour to proceed by means of reasoning. 



M. de Blainville thinks, that it was an ordinary poulp that 

 was seen by Aristotle in the shell of the argonaut ; and he 

 founds his opinion upon what is said by that gi'eat naturalist 

 of the arms being united by a membrane, slender as a spi- 

 der's web, in the same manner as the toes of ducks. Our 

 ov\Ti observation of the palmatures upon the arms of the 

 poulps of argonauts, of which we have already spoken, over- 

 turns this argument, since it shows that the character ob- 

 served by Aristotle, applies as well to the one as the other. 



Mutien, Pliny, Bom, and Bosc, have all spoken of a Seiche 

 which inhabits the argonaut; that doubtless is true, but it is 

 not less certain that these naturalists understood by a Seiche, 

 a poulp ; as is shown by the Sepia octopus of Linnaeus, the 

 Sepia rugosa of Bosc, &c., &c. How otherwise are we to 

 comprehend that a Seiche, which is always an elongated ani- 

 mal, and not at all proteiform as poulps are in general, which 

 besides,'encloses in its body a large, straight, and solid shell, 

 could ensconce itself in the cavity of an argonaut, and conse- 

 quently cause the first shell to accommodate itself to the form 

 of the other. And further, to admit the possibility of so extra- 

 ordinary a circumstance, we must suppose, (the narrowness of 

 the opening in some argonauts considered), that the Seiche 

 would place itself sideways, — that is, for example, the ventral 

 part to the right, and the dorsal part to the left ; which would 

 be contrary to what we have just pointed out as existing in 

 the cephalopod of the argonaut, where the dorsal part is al- 

 ways behind, and the ventral part always before, without a 

 possibility of its ever being otherwise. 



M. de Blainville cites M. de Roissy, as having assured him 

 that he had seen in the hands of M. Ferussac, in two different 

 species of argonauts, the A, lisse, and the rice-grained argo- 

 naut, two poulps, evidently of the same species. Here is, 

 certainly, a very strong objection, and one which appears to 

 carry much weight ; for M. de Roissy, as all naturalists know, 

 is an observer as skilful as conscientious, and, for our own 

 part, we often allow ourselves to be influenced by his judg- 

 ment, because we have learned to know its worth ; but, wish- 

 ing to have on this subject very accurate details, we interro- 

 gated this naturalist, and, we confess, that the objection lost 

 a great deal of its merit in our eyes, when we had learned 

 from his own mouth that he had not seen the two poulps in 



