114 
EE VIEWS. 
are placed on the outside of the body. In the Actinozoa the stomach 
wall is separated by an intervening space from the outer integument. 
This intervening space is subdivided by numerous partitions, and in the 
chambers so formed the reproductive organs are lodged. lSfow, some of 
the Zoophytes, for example, the Hydra, belong to the Hydrozoa; while 
others, as the Actinia, belong to the Actinozoa. These two genera are, in 
fact, the types of the two respective groups in question. Again, certain 
Acalephse, as the Pelagia, or the Physalia, belong to the Hydrozoa; while 
others, as the Cydippe, are clearly referrible to the Actinozoa. Conse¬ 
quently, the two classes, Zoophyta and Acalephae, are unworthy of adop¬ 
tion, being unnatural. Nor does Mr. Dallas employ them, but substitutes 
two classes, Hydrozoa and Polypifera. Yet he, at the same time, falls 
into the error which we have just noticed, for he refers the Ctenophora 
to the Hydrozoa, though he adds that, in his own opinion, they ought 
to be placed in a class by themselves. Yet no fact in comparative ana¬ 
tomy can be considered more surely established than is the structural 
correspondence which has been proved to exist between the Actinia and 
Beroida. 
The Polypifera (Actinozoa) are briefly and badly described. No 
example is given of a non-adherent Actinoid, such as Iluanthos, &c. 
Capnea, Zoanthus, and other important genera, are passed by without 
any mention, and the student who expects to find the several parts of a 
common coral polype enumerated and explained will surely meet with 
disappointment. We are told, most erroneously, that no communication 
exists between the chambers and stomach in an Actinia; and, further 
on, that nothing analogous to reproduction by buds occurs among these 
animals. A mistake which had crept, probably by inadvertence, into 
the former edition of this work, is allowed to remain uncorrected in the 
present. It is stated that “ Hughes, in his ‘ Natural History of Bar- 
badoes’ (a work published before the distinctions between the animal 
and vegetable kingdoms were properly understood), denominates it 
(the Actinia) a sensitive plant having animal properties” Now the truth 
is, that Hughes makes no such assertion, and any one who will read at¬ 
tentively, as we have done, the account referred to, will be fully con¬ 
vinced that the true animal nature of the sea-anemone had been rightly 
divined by this honest and intelligent observer. 
The Hydrozoa, if we except a long account of the common fresh¬ 
water polype, are hastily and insufficiently noticed. No examples of a 
solitary Tubularian polyp, e. g. Corymorpha, is given, and the entire 
group of Diphyidse is altogether passed over. The Siphonophora are 
dismissed in a page and a half. Yet, even within this short space, an 
error, which could scarcely have been anticipated, is committed. We 
are told that the Siphonophora present two very distinct types of struc¬ 
ture, and may be, accordingly, divided into two groups, the Physograda 
and the Chondrograda. It is certainly true that the Siphonophora may 
be divided into two very distinct groups, but the Diphya is the type of 
one of them, and the Physsophora of the other. To this last group 
(Physsophoridse), both the Physalia (Physograda) and the Yelella (Chon- 
