the order as laid down by him, <; Many Polypi united to an elongated free 

 fleshy living body, containing an inorganic axis" does not apply to the genus 

 EXCRINUS, and the definition he gives of this genus itself is also erroneous, 

 in stating that " The branches forming the umbel are filled with Polypi in 

 rows." These errors of M. LAMARCK'S are omitted in M. CuyiEit's REGNE 

 ANIMAL, where, however, he gives no new generic character, but only places 

 the genus ENCRINUS after the ASTERLE, in the division ZOOPHYTES, class 

 ECNINODERMES and order PEDICELLES. I must acknowledge I do not know 

 why 3V1. CUVIER should have suppressed the name VERMES applied by 

 LINNAEUS to the sixth class of animals, and preferred the term ZOOPHYTES, 

 adding " Ou AMMAUX RAYONNES," the Greek word so translated means 

 PLANTLJKE ANIMALS. The Swedish Naturalist used it, I think with propriety, 

 to denominate his fourth order of VERMES containing the Polypi of LAMARCK, 

 because their own figure and that of their Polyparia bore a great resemblance 

 to plants; but I cannot see the reason why it should be thus extended to 

 designate a division containing the ECHINI, INTESTINAL WOKMS, INFUSORIA, &c. 



