Although, IIRC, there was a similar argument during the Scopes trial when William Jennings Bryan positively refused to be a mammal. Some wag pointed out that he had a point since the defense had defined mammals as having hair and producing milk from their mammay glands, whereas Bryan was bald and never been known to nurse his young.
Um, not quite. If it blastulates, it's designated or defined as an animal. The very concept of "animal" is a convenience of the human need for classification, the compulsion for which is at the root of the need to fit data to theory.