448 CLASSIFICATIONS OF ZOOPHYTES. 



Section III. 

 PoLYPiERS TUBULES. — Stoiij, formed of distinct and parallel tubes. 

 Ord, XVII. Tubiporees. — Catenipore. Favosite. Eunomie. Tubi- 

 pore. 



Division III. 



POLYPIDOMS CARNOSE, MORE OR LESS IRRITABLE 

 AND WITHOUT A CENTRAL AXIS. 



Ord. XVIII. — Alcyonees. Alcyon. Lobulaire. Ammothee. Xenia. 



Anthelie. Alcyonidee. Alcyonelle. Hallirhoe, 

 Ord. XIX. Polyclinees. — Distome. Sigilline. Synoique. Aplide. 



Polycline. Didemne. Eucelie. Botrylle. 

 Ord. XX. Actinaires. — Chenendopore. Hypalime. Lymnoree. 



Pelagie. Montlivaltie. Isaure. leree. 



Remark on this system seems almost unnecessary. The 

 student will deem it too complex with all its sections and 

 subsections ; and the experienced naturalist will at once es- 

 chew it as only tending to embroil and confuse and nullify all 

 the knowledge which has been acquired on the structure and 

 physiology of the remarkable creatures which are here so ela- 

 borately misarranged. Animals which the admirable anatomi- 

 cal researches of Savigny had proved, by the consent of all, to 

 belong to a different category, are here forcibly degraded to 

 their Linnsean rank, and stand in juxtaposition with true 

 zoophytes on the one hand, and doubtful ones on the other; 

 and, perhaps to make room for these pretenders, some right- 

 ful claimants, as Hydra and Pennatula, are altogether ex- 

 cluded : some genera so nearly allied that their distinction 

 may be questioned, for example, Flustra and Eschara, stand 

 in diiFerent divisions at wide distances ; while others, which 

 have not one character of importance to connect, and every 

 thing to dissever them, are placed almost in juxtaposition, as 

 the Sponges and the GorgonitS. The merits of Lamouroux 

 have always appeared to me to have been much overrated : it 

 is a very easy matter, by arbitrarily fixing on this or that 

 character, to set in order any given number of objects in any 

 pattern we may choose; and Lamouroux had no higher notion 

 of the character of a systematist than this, and acted accord- 

 ingly. It is very true that he named and distinguished many 



