Natural History of British Zoophytes. 71 



find in it no facts in support of his theory additional to those already 

 mentioned, for the greater portion of it is occupied with many de- 

 tails on the medical uses and other applications of coral which have 

 no relation to the question at issue. It seems at first to have excit- 

 ed considerable attention among the members of the Royal Society, 

 but Peyssonnel's endeavours were doomed ever to be unfortunate, 

 for whatever favour his theory was likely to receive here was nipt 

 in the bud by the opposition of Dr Parsons, a naturalist of consider- 

 able eminence, and an active member of the society. The analysis 

 of Peyssonnel's treatise was read in May 1752, and in June of the 

 same year, Dr Parsons read his answer,* which savours much of the 

 supercilious dogmatism of a sceptical philosophy. He does not pre- 

 tend that he had tested the doctrine of Peyssonnel by any experi- 

 ments or observations, nor does he question his veracity, but he 

 chose to consider the animals observed by Peyssonnel in the coral 

 and madrepores as merely accidental settlers which had nothing to 

 do with their growth, there being no " seeming power, proportion, 

 and stability" in the polypes to render them capable of performing 

 such works as they were thought to have done. " And indeed it 

 would seem to me/' says the learned Doctor, ** much more diffi- 

 cult to conceive, that so fine an arrangement of parts, such masses 

 as these bodies consist of, and such regular ramifications in some, 

 and such well-contrived organs to serve for vegetation in others, 

 should be the operations of little, poor, helpless, jelly-like animals, 

 rather than the work of more sure vegetation, which carries on the 

 growth of the tallest and largest trees with the same natural ease 

 and influence, as the minutest plant." 



But the progress of truth, although it may be delayed by opposi- 

 tion, cannot be permanently arrested. The converts to the new 

 doctrines were indeed few, but much had been done to facilitate their 

 future reception, for the slumber of prejudice had been broken, the 

 hold of the ancient opinions on the affections had been loosened, and 

 men no longer startled into scepticism when they heard of ani- 

 mals that in their productions mimicked the most beautiful and deli- 

 cate vegetable forms.f The mind of naturalists was thus in some 



* A Letter from James Parsons, M. D. F. R. S. to the Rev. Mr Birch, Seer. 

 R. S. concerning the Formation of Corals, Corallines, &c. For an account of 

 Dr Parsons's writings see Hall. Bib. Bot. ii. 340 ; and there is a sbort biogra- 

 phical notice of him in Phil. Trans, abridg. viii. 692. 



f " For it is not because an opinion is true, that others will therefore adopt it. 

 It must at the same time be congruous with our other impressions, and admit 

 of being dovetailed into them, or it will be rejected; for it is judged of by its 



