48 SUPPLEMENT 



a particular class of the worms, which he divided more easily, 

 but perhaps less felicitously, according to their habitat being 

 external, as is the case with all the chetopoda, and the hiru- 

 dines, or in the interior of other animals, as the entozoa, or 

 intestina. He admitted nearly the same genera as the Baron, 

 or at least created but few new ones. 



M. Dumeiil nearly contents himself with giving new names 

 to the divisions adopted by M. Cuvier. As to the intestinal 

 worms, he cuts the difficulty short b}^ making zoophytes of 

 them, as Linnaeus had done before, in the instance of the 

 taenia. 



In 1809, and afterwards in 1812, M. de Lamarck proposed 

 for the class of Chetopoda, the new name of Annelides. He 

 divided, as M. Dumeril had done before, this class into two 

 orders, with reference to the situation of the gills, whether 

 external or concealed (supposing the latter to have gills), 

 under the names of cryptobranchia and gymnobranchia. He 

 also then particularly established some new genera. 



Notwithstanding these innovations of the French naturalists 

 on the methodical distribution of Linnoeus, the rest of Europe 

 refused to follow the example, and adhered with obstinacy to the 

 code of the Swedish Aristotle. In Germany, however, in 1815, 

 M. Oken returned to the division of Aldrovandus, and though 

 he did not in all respects follow the French naturalists, yet his 

 arrangements were based upon the same principles. It is un- 

 necessary to follow him through the details of his allocations, 

 but though we cannot deny him the merit of extending just 

 views, yet Ave must accuse him of those perpetual mutations 

 of nomenclature which have proved, to such a signal degree, 

 detrimental to the progress of natural science. 



M. de Blainville, and especially M. de Savigny, have 

 expended much and most meritorious labour upon this class 

 of animals. But instead of pursuing this analysis of separate 



