Ss ZOOPH Y DES: 
our woods—the lichen and mushroom—the clump of pinks—the twig 
and spreading shrub—have all their counterpart among the produc- 
tions of the sea. ‘The ocean-grove is without verdure, yet there is 
along with marine plants; and the last-mentioned author was thought to have removed 
the only remaining doubt when he published to the world his discovery of the ‘* flewrs du 
corail,”—the coral flowers,—since shown to be coral animals."  Peyssonel,’ one of 
the first investigators that ventured to combat the prevalent opinion, was treated even 
with derision by the scientific men of the day; and the distinguished Reaumur gave a 
laboured reply to his essay, setting down the vegetable nature of zoophytes as too well 
ascertained to be made a subject of discussion, This took place so late as 1727. The 
subsequent discoveries of Trembley, in 1741, who published elaborate descriptions and 
figures of certain fresh-water polyps, with an accuracy of detail that has hardly been 
exceeded, opened anew the dispute on this subject, and Jussieu and Guettard undertook 
investigations in order to settle the point at issue. The coasts of France were searched, 
and several species of zoophytes found and figured. Reaumur was not slow to change 
his ground, and, in an able memoir, he reviewed the investigations of Peyssonel and Jus- 
sieu; and, with slight modifications, advocated their views. Yet, in general, philosophers 
were still incredulous. Dr. Parsons, in 1752, took the palm from Peyssonel before the 
Royal Society, and again it was believed, on grounds that were deemed satisfactory— 
Dr. Parsons’s limited conceptions and not direct investigation—that corals were plants ; 
for, says Dr. Parsons, “ It would seem to me much more difficult to conceive that so fine 
an arrangement of parts, such masses as these bodies consist of, and such regular rami- 
fications in some, and such well-contrived organs to serve for vegetation in others, should 
be the operations of poor, helpless, jelly-like animals, rather than the work of more sure 
vegetation, which carries on the growth of the tallest and largest trees with the same 
natural ease and influence as the minutest plant.”° 
Ellis appeared soon after, and by his accurate figures and descriptions of corals and 
coral animals, presented with philosophical minuteness and precision, the scientific world 
were arrested in their judgment. ‘The mineral theory of Boccone* and Guison, and the 
crystallization theory of Baker,® were checked in their progress, and the vegetable theory 
at the same time began to lose its popularity. 
Linnzus, then the umpire in science, received the new opinions cautiously. He was 
unwilling to adopt at once the views of Ellis, and finally satisfied himself, or his fancy, 
with the theory that zoophytes were intermediate in their nature between plants and ani- 
mals, possessing the functions of animal and vegetable life combined. Excepting the 
® Marsigli, Physique de la Mer, Amsterdam, 1725. Marsigli’s first observations were made in 1706. 
» Peyssonel was anticipated only by Ferrante Imperato, who published a “ Historia Naturale,” at 
Naples, in 1599. See Blainville, Man. d’Act., p. 14. 
¢ Peyssonel’s Memoir covers 400 pages of manuscript, and was the result of a long series of observa- 
tions in the West Indies. It was sent to the Royal Society in 1751, and an abstract of it was read, 
which appeared in the Transactions, for 1753 (vol. x. of Abridgment). The Memoir is still extant in 
the Library of the Museum, at Paris, and a late notice of it by M. Flourens may be found in the Annales 
des Sciences Naturelles, ix. 334, 2d Ser., 1838. Dr. J. Parsons’s reply to Peyssonel followed soon after 
the communication of his discoveries, in 1752. 
4 P. Boecone, Museo di Fisica, &c., Venice, 1694, 1 vol., 4to., with figures. 
© Employment for the Microscope, pp. 218-220, London, 1753. 
