48 
SUPPLEMENT 
a particular class of the worms, which he divided more easily, 
but perhaps less felicitously, according to their habitat being 
external, as is the case with all the chetopoda, and the hiru- 
dines, or in the interior of other animals, as the entozoa, or 
intestina. He admitted nearly the same genera as the Baron, 
or at least created but few new ones. 
M. D umer il nearly contents himself with giving new names 
to the divisions adopted by M. Cuvier. As to the intestinal 
worms, he cuts the difficulty short by making zoophytes of 
them, as Linnaeus had done before, in the instance of the 
taenia. 
In 1809, and afterwards in 1812, M. de Lamarck proposed 
for the class of Chetopoda, the new name of Annelides. lie 
divided, as M. Dumeril had done before, this class into two 
orders, with reference to the situation of the gills, whether 
external or concealed (supposing the latter to have gills), 
under the names of cryptobranchia and gymnobrancliia. lie 
also then particularly established some new genera. 
Notwithstanding these innovations of the French naturalists 
on the methodical distribution of Linnmus, the rest of Europe 
refused to follow the example, and adhered with obstinacy to the 
code of the Swedish Aristotle. In Germany, however, in 1815, 
M. Oken returned to the division of Aldrovandus, and though 
he did not in all respects follow' the French naturalists, yet his 
arrangements were based upon the same principles. It is un- 
necessary to follow him through the details of his allocations, 
but though w 7 e cannot deny him the merit of extending just 
views, yet we must accuse him of those perpetual mutations 
of nomenclature which have proved, to such a signal degree, 
detrimental to the progress of natural science. 
M. de Blainville, and especially M. de Savigny, have 
expended much and most meritorious labour upon this class 
of animals. But instead of pursuing this analysis of separate 
