20 
HISTORY OF ZOOPHYTOLOGY. 
of posterity. <c Linne,” he says, “ decided that they (zoophytes) 
were between vegetables and animals : vegetables with re- 
spect to their stems, and animals with respect to their flores- 
cence. 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 natu- 
ralist. 
Ellis had indeed effected a revolution in the opinions of scien- 
tific 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, f which, however, very few 
ventured to maintain publicly. Of these the only one who 
merits our particular notice is Dr Job Baster of Zurichsee in 
Zealand, who seems to have been very imperfectly qualified for 
the task he had undertaken. At first he boldly asserted the vege- 
tability of all zoophytes, attempted to prove that the Sertularise 
were really articulated Confervae, and that the little animals ob- 
served 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 ignorance is 
usually as unfeeling as she is proverbially confident in her as- 
sertions, 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 further experiments made him fully aware of this ridiculous 
error ; and having become better acquainted with his subject, 
* 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 
accuracy of the observations of even Jussieu. — How far he was competent to 
observe himself will be made apparent to the zoophytologist by the following- 
extract Loco polyporum Bernardi de Jussieu, papillas septem glandulis con- 
sitas reperit, et mucum putat esse, quern vocant cornua : ex papillis vero pres- 
ses aqua, deinde lacpullulat, eaedemque ad corticem inseparabili nexu adhaerent.” 
— Hall. Bib. Bot. ii, 444. 
