20 HISTORY OF ZOOPHYTOLOGY. 



of posterity. " Linne," he says, " decided that they (zoophytes) 

 were between vegetables and animals : vegetables with re- 

 spect to their stems, and animals with respect to their flores- 

 cence. This idea is still entertained."* Before we notice the 

 manner of its reception by Ellis, we may take a short review of 

 the writings of some other of the opponents of the latter natu- 

 ralist. 



Ellis had indeed effected a revolution in the opinions of scien- 

 tific men, but there were some even of considerable reputation 

 who either wavered between the old and new, or continued to 

 hold the notions of their fathers,f which, however, very few 

 ventured to maintain publicly. Of these the only one who 

 merits our particular notice is Dr Job Baster of Zurichsee in 

 Zealand, who seems to have been very imperfectly qualified for 

 the task he had undertaken. At first he boldly asserted the vege- 

 tability of all zoophytes, attempted to prove that the Sertulari^ 

 were really articulated Confervse, and that the little animals ob- 

 served on them were merely parasites, which had as little to do 

 with the formation of the object they rested on, as the maggots 

 in a mushroom had to do with its moonlioht growth. These 

 the results of his actual observation were set forth in a tone of 

 arrogance calculated to wound the feelings and good fame of 

 Ellis, nor is this conduct to be wondered at, for ignorance is 

 usually as unfeeling as she is proverbially confident in her as- 

 sertions, and the Dutch naturalist was truly very ignorant of all 

 relating to the subject he attempted to elucidate. Unskilled in 

 marine botany he actually mistook the objects of the enquiry, 

 and instead of Sertulariae set himself to examine true Confervae, 

 — a fact which the drawings illustrative of his paper demonstrate. 

 His further experiments made him fully aware of this ridiculous 

 error ; and having become better acquainted with his subject, 



Pulteney's General view of the Writings of Linnaeus, by Dr Maton, p. 560. 

 Lond. 1805. 



t Count Ginanni was one of these, and had the hardihood to question the 

 accuracy of the observations of even Jussieu — How far he was competent to 

 observe himself will be made apparent to the zoophytologist by the following 

 extract : — " Loco polyiiorum Bernardi de Jussieu, papillas septem glandulis con- 

 sitas repcrit, et mucum pulat esse, quern vocant cornua : ex papillis vero pres- 

 sisaqua, demde lac pull ulat, eiedemque ad corticem inseparabili nexu adherent." 

 —Hall. Bib. Bot. ii, 444. 



