62 
CLASSIFICATIONS OF ZOOPHYTES. 
in similar labours; but, proceeding on different principles, they 
arrived at very different results. The anatomy of the workers 
or polypes was, according to Lamouroux, so imperfectly ascer- 
tained, and from their situation as well as from their minute- 
ness, so little within attainment, that it seemed hopeless to pro- 
cure materials for a classification from that source, and he con- 
fined his attention solely to the polypidoms, on whose composi- 
tion he founded his primary divisions. Lamarck, although he 
also confined his examination to the polypidoms, took higher 
ground : he maintained that as these were secreted by the poly- 
pes and formed on and by them, a sameness in the structure of 
the one necessarily implied a sameness in the structure of the 
other ; that in fact we might as safely infer a sameness of struc- 
ture or dissimilarity from the various configurations of the poly- 
pe-cells and coral, as we could from an actual inspection of the 
animated tenants themselves. The experience of a few years 
has shown either that Lamarck’s examination of the coral was 
hasty, or that his principle was erroneous, for his arrangement 
is far from being in harmony with a physiological one, and, 
although greatly superior to Lamouroux’s, yet is not the less ar- 
tificial ; there being even in some of his genera, species whose 
polypes are widely at variance with each other. I do not mean 
to trace the systems of either of these authors through their va- 
rious changes, from their first promulgation to their perfection ;* 
an outline of them in their latest state is sufficient for our purpose. 
System of Lamouroux. f (1821.) 
Division I. 
POLYPIDOMS FLEXIBLE, OR NOT ENTIRELY STONY. 
Section 1. 
Polypiers celluliferes.- — Polypes in non-irritable cellules. 
Ord. I. Celleporees. — Tubulipore. Cellepore. 
Ord. II. Flustrees. — Berenice. Pheruse. Elzerine. Flustre. 
Electre. 
* Blainville has given a history of all the proposed classifications in chrono- 
logical series in his Manuel d’Actinologie, which the reader may consult with 
advantage. 
■f The primary sections of this systematist may have been borrowed from J. 
E. Roques de Maumont — See Blainv. Man. d’Actinol. p. 28. 
