HISTORY OF ZOOPHYTOLOGY. 425 



their florescence. 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 naturalist. 



Ellis had indeed effected a revolution in the opinions of 

 scientific men, but there were some even of considerable repu- 

 tation who either wavered between the old and new, or con- 

 tinued 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 imper- 

 fectly qualified for the task he had undertaken. At first he 

 boldly asserted the vegetability of all zoophytes, attempted to 

 prove that the Sertularise were really articulated Confervse, 

 and that the little animals observed on them were merely pa- 

 rasites, 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 moonlight 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 assertions, and the Dutch na- 

 turalist 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 Ser- 

 tulariee set himself to examine true Confervse, a fact which 

 the drawings illustrative of his paper demonstrate. His fur- 

 ther experiments made him fully aware of this ridiculous 

 error ; and having become better acquainted with his subject, 

 he appears to have been puzzled what to make of zoophytes ; 

 they were certainly not sea-weeds, and it were too humiliat- 

 ing to adopt a once rejected theory, when happily the Sys- 

 tema Naturae came to his aid, and he instantly adopted with 



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 poly- 

 porum Bernardi de Jussieu, papillas septem glandulis consitas reperit, et mucum putat 

 esse, quern vocant cornua : ex papillis vero pressis aqua, deinde lac pullulat, eaedemque 

 ad corticem inscparabili nexu adhaerent." Hall. Bib. Bot. ii. 444. 



