4 DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ANIMALS, ETC. 



to the soil, and nourished by the water in which they 

 float. Some* have characterized Animals as nou- 

 rished by their internal, and Vegetables by their exter- 

 nal surface, the latter having no such thing as an inter- 

 nal stomach. This is ingenious and tolerably correct ; 

 but the proofs of it must fail with respect to those 

 airinute and simply-constructed animals the Polypes, 

 mnd the lower tribes of Worms, whose feelers, put 

 forth into the water, seem scarcely different from roots 

 seeking their food in the earth, and some of which 

 may be turned inside out, like a glove, without any 

 disturbance of their ordinary functions. The most 

 satisfactory remark I have for a long time met with on 

 4his difficult subject is that of M. Mirbel, in his Trait 6 

 *if Anatomic et c/e Physiologic Vgetales'\> a work I 

 'shall often have occasion to quote. He observes, 

 vol. i. p. 19, " that plants alone have a power of de- 

 riving nourishment, though not indeed exclusively, 

 from inorganic matter, mere earths, salts or airs, sub- 

 stances certainly incapable of serving as food for any 

 animals, the latter only feeding on what is or has been 

 organized matter, either of a vegetable or animal 

 nature. So that it should seem to be the office of 

 vegetable lite alone to transform dead matter into or- 

 ganized living bodies." This idea appears to me so 

 just, that I have in vain sought for any exception to it. 

 Let us however descend from these philosophical 



* Dr. Alston, formerly professor of botany at Edinburgh, 

 f Published at Paris a few years since, in two vols. 8vo. 



