[ 2«3 ] 
His third argument is, That almoft ajways '©oe 
and the fame coralline plant cherifhes polypes of 
different kinds j and refers us to Tab. VIII. fig. 2. 
and 4. 
In fig. 1. he gives us an elegant painting of a geni- 
culated red conferva for a coralline, furrounded, as 
is very common, by many fpecies of fmall corallines 
and efcharas. And in fig. 4. he gives us a drawing 
of one of the tubular corallines, with the head of 
the animal at the top of it ; the Item of this is in- 
crufted with four different corallines and efcharas, 
like the conferva fig. 2 ; and then he afks, which 
of thefe five polypes made the tubular coralline ? 
To give him fome proof of the animal nature of 
this coralline, let him confult Ray’s Synopfis, ed. 3. 
p. 34. n. 4. and there he will find one of this fpecies, 
called adianti aurei minimi Jacie plant a marina , 
taken notice of fo long ago as the year 1713. bv 
Dr. Lloyd, as a zoophyte, from its ftem or tube’s 
being full of a thick reddifh liquor, rather refem- 
bling blood than the juice of a plant; which, upon 
prefling the ftem, communicated with the little head 
at top. 
His fourth argument is, That as upon one and 
the fame coralline plant you fhall find different kind 
of polypes ; fo, in different fpecies of coralline, the 
fame polypes : and, to confirm this, he quotes my 
Effay on Corallines ; where I have remarked, that 
the polypes in the denticles of the fetaceous or briftly 
coralline, N°. 16. appear to be like thofe, that are on 
the lobfter’s-horn coralline, N*. 19. And to illuftrate 
this, he obferves, that bees and wafps always build 
their cells invariably the fame ; and that therefore 
thefe two corallines fhould be the fatoe, 
But 
