Sponges figure in herbals beside seaweeds and mushrooms, and Gerarde says:[187] "There is found growing upon rockes near unto the sea a certaine matter wrought together of the foame or froth of the sea which we call Spunges ... whereof to speak at any length would little benefit the reader ... seeing the use thereof is so well known." About the middle of the eighteenth century, authors, especially Peyssonnel, suggested that sponges were but the houses of worms, which built them much as a bee or wasp builds nests and cells. This was confuted by Ellis in 1765,[188] when he pointed out that the sponge could not be a dead structure, as it gave proof of life by "sucking and throwing out water." To Ellis, then, is due the credit of first describing, though imperfectly, a current set up by sponges. He mentions that Count Marsigli[189] had already made somewhat similar observations. It was not till 1825 that attention was again turned to the current, when Robert Grant approached the group in a truly scientific manner, and was ably supported by Lieberkühn. It would be impossible to do justice to Grant in the brief summary to which we must limit ourselves. The most important of his contributions was the discovery that water enters the sponge by small apertures scattered over the surface, and leaves it at certain larger holes, always pursuing a fixed course. He made a few rough experiments to estimate the approximate strength of the current, and, though he failed to detect its cause, he supposed that it was probably due to ciliary action. Grant's suggestion was afterwards substantiated by Dujardin (1838), Carter (1847), Dobie (1852), and Lieberkühn (1857). These five succeeded in establishing the claims of sponges to a place in the animal kingdom, claims which were still further confirmed when James-Clark[190] detected the presence of the protoplasmic collar of the flagellated cells (see pp. 171, 176). Data were now wanted on which to base an opinion as to the position of sponges within the animal kingdom. In 1878 Schulze[191] furnished valuable embryological facts, in a description agreeing with an earlier one of Metschnikoff's, of the amphiblastula larva (p. 226) and its metamorphosis. {168}Then Bütschli[192] (1884) and Sollas[193] on combined morphological and embryological evidence (1884) concluded that sponges were remote from all the Metazoa, showing bonds only with Choanoflagellate Protozoa (p. 121). This the exact embryological work of Maas, Minchin, and Delage has done much to prove, but it has to be admitted that unanimity on the exact position of the phylum has not yet been attained, some authorities, such as Haeckel, Schulze, and Maas still wishing to include sponges in the Metazoa. In this short history we have been obliged to refer only to work helping directly to solve the problem of the nature of a sponge, hence many names are absent which we should have wished to mention. HALICHONDRIA PANICEA.