I^ ANIMALGULA OF INFUSIONS. 1 T^f 



I fliall here fpeak of an objedion Itarted by 

 Mr Ellis, lefs becaule it merits refutation than 

 becaufe it fliould not be entirely overlooked. His 

 opinion is, that the divifion of animalcula is not 

 a natural mode of propagation, but the effed: of 

 accident, and that it is occafioned by accidental 

 fhocks, from llriking againfl: each other. This 

 opinion he deduces from two reafons ; firiL, from 

 the proportion of animalcula divid.ng to thofe 

 that do not, which is fcarcely as one to fifiy j 

 and, fecondly, from obfervLv.g young in the body 

 of adults, and within the young lome Hill young- 

 er (i). 



It was unfortunate that M. de SaulTure's dif- 

 covery had not been publiihed when this learn- 

 ed naturalifl compofed his Memoir. Had he ieen 

 his obfervations, and what has fmce been obfcrved 

 by me, it is no arrogance to affirm, that he would 

 have deeply penetrated into experimental refearch 

 on infufion animalcula. He would alfo have 

 perceived that the fhocks and llriking together 

 are perfeftly imaginary. In the end of my Dif- 

 fertation, their anxiety to avoid one another, and 

 different obflacles, are mentioned in exprefs terms. 

 The like is remarked by two excellent naturahifs. 

 Father Beccaria and M. de Sauflure ; and, in my 

 new enquiries, I have had opportunities of fe-^ing 

 the fa£t confirmed a thoufand times. Thereiore, 



it 

 ( I ) Philofophical Tranfadions. 



