Chap. I. HISTORY OF THE ACALEPHS. 11 



associating erroneously, however, the sea-urchins with the former. But again, in the 

 second part of his Avork, whicli appeared one year hiter than the first, discussing the 

 characteristics of the OdraJcodcnna, or Conchifera, and comparing them to the Entoma, 

 or Insects, he unites the bivalve and univalve shells into one groat division. In this 

 arrangement, Rondelet is already as far advanced as Lamarck, who separates the 

 Cephalopoda as a distinct class from the Conchifera. With reference to the Entoma, 

 or Insects, which he characterizes as animals having incisions al)ove or below or on 

 both sides and no howy parts, he unites the Worms and the Annelids with a small 

 Crustacean, and associates also the Star-fishes and Holothurio? with them, a com))ination 

 which even Oken has thought natural. 



Among the other naturahsts of the sixteenth and tliose of the seventeenth century, 

 there are a few more who deserve to be mentioned as contributors to the natural 

 history of the Acalephs. Matthioli, for instance, while commenting upon the plants 

 of Dioscorides,^ introduces some remarks upon Acalephs and other Zouph\-tes of 

 wdiicli he gives w^ood-cuts. In part second of the same work, published in 1555, 

 there is a figure of a Beroid Medusa, in a short paragraph " De Cucumere marino," 

 p. 131; and another of the "Eschara," p. 133. Wotton, also,^ speaking of Zoophytes, 

 mentions the sea-lungs and sea-nettles ; and, somewhat latei-, Aldrovandi,^ in his gigan- 

 tic Cyclopedia of Natural History, published in fourteen large volumes, folio, partly 

 by himself and partly from his papers after his death, mentions also some of tliese 

 animals, without, however, adding any thing that w^ould throw new light upon their 

 nature. The same may be said of the work of Jonston.* It would lead me too fixr 

 were I to attempt here to give ever so short an account of the rather indifferent 

 notices relating to Acalephs that are scattered in the writings of the other natural- 

 ists of this period. It may suffice to quote their w^orks, and refer the reader to the 

 originals.^ One remark, however, applies to most of them, and characterizes the spirit 



1 Matthioli (P. A.), Coinnifntarii in sex libros tlio Ascidiw, and the HalcyonoiJ Polyp.s. His figures 



Dioscoridis de mediea materia ; adjectis niagnis ae are eopied from B^lon, from Rondelet, from Aldro- 



novis Plantarum ac Animalinm iconibiis, etc., Ve- vandi, and from Matthioli. 



netiis, 1554, fol. fig. — Compare also C.esalpinus ^ Salviani (Hipp.), Acpiatilium animalinm His- 



(A.), De plantis Libri XVI. Florentiis, 1583, 4to. toria, Roma?, 1554, fol. fig. — Imperato (Ferr.), 



- Wotton (Edw.), De differentiis Animalium, Ilistoria naturale, nella quale si tratta della diversa 



Libri X. Parisiis, 1552, fol. condizione de Minere, Pietre preziose e altre curio- 



' Aldrovandi (Ul.), Ilistoria Naturalis, Bo- sita, con varie istorie di Plante e Animali, Napoli, 



nonia?, 1599-1640, 14 vols. fol. fig. 1559, fol. — Clusius (Car.), Exoticorum libri 



* JoNSTON (J.), Historian Naturalis de Exan- decem, quibus Animalium, Plantarum aromatum 



"uibus aquaticis Libri IV. Francofurti ad Mocnum, aliorumque peregrinorum fruetuum historia descri- 



1G50, fol. fig. — Book IV. p. 72 is devoted to the buntur. An vers, 1C05, fol. fig. — Colonna (Fab.), 



Zoophytes in general, among which he includes, with Aquatilium et terrestrium aliquot animalium alia- 



Rondelet, the Actinia? and Medusiv, the IIolothuria\ rumque naturalium rerum observationes, Roma?, 



