On Being An Animal, or, the Eighteenth-Century Zoophyte Controversy in Britain

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONZoophytes, a group of strange creatures that exist somewhere on, or between, the boundaries of the plant and animal kingdoms, were the subject of considerable debate in the eighteenth century. They were believed by some naturalists to be a blend of plant and animal; others considered them to be entirely plant, albeit with some animal characteristics; and others still argued that they were wholly animal, but conceded that they occasionally behaved like plants. These disagreements about the nature of the zoophyte allow us to understand a wide range of issues in late eighteenth-century natural history: how the plant and animal kingdoms were defined; the relationship between the two; the meaning of the 'chain of being'; and the construction of taxonomic systems.Zoophyte studies brought together natural history, natural philosophy, and practices from the experimental and observational traditions in a unique way. Here I discuss how zoophytes, and zoophyte studies, can be used to elucidate questions about methodology within eighteenth-century British natural history; about the relationship between theory and practice in natural history; and about the ways in which naturalists formulated arguments and dealt with controversial issues. The strangeness of the creatures necessitated a distinctive approach; the problem of the zoophyte could not be resolved unless one combined practical knowledge of specimens with theoretical knowledge about the nature of animal life or the 'natural' order of creation. By examining this approach, one begins to see some of the ways in which natural history interacted with other fields of knowledge. The fluidity of eighteenth-century branches of knowledge has been well documented, but little work has been done specifically on the overlaps between natural history (especially within botany and zoology), natural philosophy and the chemical sciences.1A large number of organisms fell into the category of 'zoophyte': not just polyps, corals and sponges, but also starfish and earthworms were placed in this group by different naturalists.2 In ancient and early modern times zoophytes were generally seen as a rather insignificant part of nature. It was only in the eighteenth century, following the discoveries of Abraham Trembley (1710-84), that larger numbers of naturalists began to study them seriously and to see them as potentially useful in answering questions about the natural world. Trembley, a Swiss naturalist, had begun his researches on polyps in the 1730s and his key discoveries centred on the regenerative powers of those tiny creatures. A polyp is an organism, generally less than a centimetre in length, shaped like a bell or, the description more commonly employed by eighteenth-century naturalists, like the severed finger of a glove, its single opening is surrounded by tentacles and leads to a central cavity (later discovered to be its stomach); they are generally found in stagnant ditches or similar locations. When, in March 1741 , Trembley wrote to the French savant Rene-Antoine Ferchault de Reaumur (1683-1757) to announce his discovery that these polyps could reproduce from cuttings, it caused consternation in the learned circles of Europe. Especially in France, where Trembley 's findings had been reported in the Histoire de l'Academie des Sciences, discussion of polyp regeneration re-ignited debates about materialism and vitalism.3 Since I particularly wish to see how British natural history functioned, this article will focus primarily on the zoophyte studies of British-based naturalists. Many British authors tried to minimize the focus on philosophical questions about what a zoophyte was, preferring to supply a technical description of its appearance and habits.4 But it is possible, sometimes, to discern the problems these authors faced when studying polyps - particularly by looking at the ways in which they classified these organisms. The first decision to be made when classifying related to kingdom: was the specimen animal, vegetable or mineral? …