Prof. Forbes's Note in Reply to Mr. Hassall. 189 



the polypes ; 2nd^ because the whole structure of the polypidom 

 itself was porous and incrusted with a gelatinous material ; and 

 lastly, because it was invested by a membrane derived from the 

 polypes themselves, and which likewise covered the mm-icated 

 processes. If these were the grounds of his conviction he must 

 be very easily comdnced, since, admitting the correctness of the 

 observations (which I am by no means inclined to do), they are 

 all so many arguments against the genus Echinocorium, since 

 they are quite contrary to the type of structure in the Zoopkyta 

 Hydroida, to which order the animal of his genus undoubtedly 

 belongs. His logic too is singularly bad, for by his first argu- 

 ment he might prove the oyster-shell to be the polypidom of 

 Cliona ; and by the second, that a fucus had the same relation 

 with a Botryllus. When I said that the Coryne could be sepa- 

 rated from the Alcyonidium without injury, of com-sc I meant 

 without organic lesion ; no other meaning would have been sci- 

 entific. As to the separation of the Alcyonidium echinatum as a 

 genus (it is a somewhat unphilosophic consolation, that though 

 we are not right one way, we may be in another), I agree with 

 ]Mr. Hassall that it probably should be, but we want more data 

 ere we can constitute it satisfactorily. As to the Coryne being 

 distinct, I also think it is, and three years ago showed a draw- 

 ing of it to Dr. Johnston under that conviction. He was fami- 

 liar Math the form, but regarded it as a variety of C. squamosa. In 

 order that there be no mistake in future about it, the best way is 

 to constitute it a species at once, and name it after the indus- 

 trious natm-alist who has brought it so prominently forward. 



Coryne Hassalli, nov. sp. C. corpore elongato, capite clavato, ten- 



taculis brevibus albidis. L. 1 — 2 lin. 

 In mare Britannico profundiore. 



Obs. Secundum Hassall, animal Echinocorii, genus Zoophytarum 

 improbabile. 



Now, as to the Phosphorescence of Zoophytes, I again repeat, 

 that the general fact has long been known. It has been taught 

 for years in the class-room of every natural-history and physiolo- 

 gical professor at home and abroad. I taught it myself in my 

 lectures in Edinburgh in 1838 as a familiar fact, not as a novelty. 

 The masters under whom I had studied had taught me, and I had 

 confirmed their observations on the sea-shore. Dr. Johnston's 

 insertion of Stewart's paragraph is a sufficient indication of his 

 recognition of the fact. Dr. Grant notices it in his published lec- 

 tm-es. What can be more to the piu-pose than Dr. Carpenter's 

 summaiy — "Sponges, Sertularia, Pennatula, and otherPolyjiifera, 

 exhibit some degree of luminosity" (Principles of Gen. Physio- 

 logy, 1839) ? If Mr. Hassall be, as he says himself, " not suffi- 



