5) 
the order as laid down by him, “ Many Polypi united to an elongated free 
fleshy living body, containing an inorganic axis” does not apply to the genus 
Encrinus, and the definition he gives of this genus itself is also erroneous, 
in stating that “The branches forming the umbel are filled with Polypi in 
rows.” These errors of M. Lamarcx’s are omitted in M. Cuvier’s Reane 
Animat, where, however, he gives no new generic character, but only places 
the genus Encrinvus after the AsTERI, in the division ZoopHyTes, class 
Ecninopermes and order Pepiceztrs. I must acknowledge I do not know 
why M. Cuvier should have suppressed the name VerRMes applied by 
Linneus to the sixth class of animals, and preferred the term ZoopuHyTes, 
adding “Ov AnmmAux Rayonnes,” the Greek word so translated means 
PuantTLike Antmats. The Swedish Naturalist used it, I think with propriety, 
to denominate his fourth order of Vermes containing the Polypi of Lamarck, 
because their own figure and that of their Polyparia bore a great resemblance 
to plants; but I cannot see the reason why it should be thus extended to 
designate a division containing the Eentnt, INTESTINAL WORMS, InrusoriA, Kc. 
