and further notices of the Spongilla fluviatilis. 191 



distinguished German zoologist, with other true organs of ani- 

 mals, several stomachs or gastric sacs ; so then, before these na- 

 turalists shall have decided that the animal-like pieces or frag- 

 ments of the sponge are in reality infusorian animalcules, it is 

 necessary to prove that these pieces or fragments are such orga- 

 nized beings, and that they are in fact furnished with one or 

 more gastric sacs : — for it is not sufficient to state that they 

 resemble the infusorian Aincebce. 



Every known animal is possessed of a stomach, or stomachical, 

 or gastric sac, and therefore the sponge, or spongilla, if an ani- 

 mal, must of necessity be endued with, at least, one of such 

 sacs, — otherwise it cannot possibly be esteemed as belonging to 

 the animal kingdom. If unfurnished with that organ, it can only 

 be strictly considered as an animal-like being, — i. e. one bearing 

 greatly the resemblance of a lower or infusorian animal. Con- 

 sequently those who assert the affirmative of this question, viz. 

 that sponges are animals, are bound to prove that they are so ; 

 for, according to the general rule, the affirmative is alone capable 

 of proof. 



Mr. Carter, indeed, having first written (p. 306, April Num- 

 ber 1848, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist.), that " as to the animality 

 of the freshwater sponge I think there can be no doubt what- 

 ever ;" at a later period says (in a subsequent Number, August 

 1849, p. 98), "Respecting the position yfhich Spongilla holds 

 among organized bodies, I feel incompetent to offer an opinion." 

 But he has previously (in the same paper and Number, p. 82) 

 asserted — " The time appears to have arrived for abandoning the 

 question of the animality or vegetability of Spongilla, for the 

 more philosophical consideration of the position it holds in that 

 transitionary part of the scale of organized bodies which unites 

 the animal and vegetable kingdoms." From this view of the 

 subject I must totally differ, for there surely can be no true phi- 

 losophy in considering these, or any other like natural bodies, as 

 partaking of both animal and vegetable natures, — that is to say, 

 not strictly pertaining either to the animal or to the vegetable 

 kingdom — yet uniting both, or in a state of transition between 

 the two, or in what may be termed, an animal-vegetable province. 



If such philosophy be admissible, we may then expect to hear 

 of some natural substances being considered as partaking of, and 

 so uniting, the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms ; as for 

 instance, what were formei'ly named Lithophyta, or more fully, 

 Lithophytozoa, and therefore to be classed in a new division — 

 the Animal-vegetable-mineral province. Thus, instead of three 

 kingdoms in Nature, we should have five ; or possibly as some 

 might prefer to style them — three kingdoms and two subking- 

 doms or two provinces. 



