78 Natural History of British Zoophytes. 



There was something in this hypothesis peculiarly captivating to 

 an imaginative mind, and few poets have possessed a richer fancy 

 than Linnaeus. He seems to have ever fondly cherished the opin- 

 ion, for in his curious Diary, in which he has enumerated with much 

 complacency all his works and merits, it is mentioned as one of his 

 principal recommendations to the respect of posterity. " Linne," 

 he says, " decided that they (zoophytes) were between vegetables 

 and animals : vegetables with respect to their stems, and animals 

 with respect to their florescence. This idea is still entertained." * 

 Before we notice the manner of its reception by Ellis, we may take 

 a short review of the writings of some other of the opponents of the 

 latter naturalist. 



Ellis had indeed effected a revolution in the opinions of scentific 

 men, but there were some even of considerable reputation who 

 either wavered between the old and new, or continued to hold the 

 notions of their fathers, t which, however, very few ventured to 

 maintain publicly. Of these the only one who merits our parti- 

 cular notice is Dr Job Baster of Zurichsee in Zealand, who seems 

 to have been very imperfectly qualified for the task he had under- 

 taken. At first he boldly asserted the vegetability of all zoophytes, 

 attempted to prove that the Sertulariae were really articulated Con- 

 fervas, and that the little animals observed on them were merely 

 parasites, which had as little to do with the formation of the object 

 they rested on, as the maggots in a mushroom had to do with its 

 moonlight growth. These the results of his actual observation were 

 set forth in a tone of arrogance calculated to wound the feelings and 

 good fame of Ellis, nor is this conduct to be wondered at, for igno- 

 rance is usually as unfeeling as she is proverbially confident in her 

 assertions, and the Dutch naturalist was truly very ignorant of all 

 relating to the subject he attempted to elucidate. Unskilled in 

 marine botany he actually mistook the objects of the enquiry, and 

 instead of Sertulariae set himself to examine true Confervae, — a fact 

 which the drawings illustrative of his paper demonstrate. His fur- 

 ther experiments made him fully aware of this ridiculous error; and 

 having become better acquainted with his subject, he appears to 

 have been puzzled what to make of zoophytes ; they were certain- 

 ly not sea-weeds, — and it were too humiliating to adopt a once re- 

 jected theory, — when happily the Systema Naturae came to his aid, 



* Pulteney's General view of the Writings of Linnaeus, by Dr Maton, p. 560. 

 Lond. 1805. 



f Count Ginanni was one of these, and had the hardihood to question the ac- 

 curacy and observations of even Jussieu See Hall. Bib. Bot. ii. 444. 



