SWAJVUVIERDAM 183 



butterfly exposed. The expression " animal in animali," 

 we remark, incorporates the very notion which Swam- 

 merdam had vehemently repudiated in his controversy 

 with Harvey, where he says as emphatically as he can 

 that the larva or pupa is not changed into a butterfly ; 

 it is itself the butterfly in another form. 



He protested also against Harvey's doctrine that the 

 pupa is an egg, a doctrine which, ill-supported as it is, 

 still reappears from time to time. 



In one place ^ Swammerdam, after disposing of these 

 misleading hypotheses, brings out one of his own. There 

 is perhaps, he says, no true generation anywhere in 

 nature ; what goes by that name is merely continuous 

 growth, a budding out of new parts, the same process as 

 that by which the legs and wings of the butterfly are 

 formed in the larva. This, he thinks, explains how a 

 mutilated parent can produce unmutilated ofispring, how 

 Levi could pay tithes to Melchisedec, before he was born, 

 and how the sin of Adam can be laid to the charge of all 

 his posterity. Upon this sandy foundation was long 

 afterwards erected the theory of " emboitement " (infra, 

 p. 289). 



Swammerdam recognised four modes of larval develop- 

 ment, and made use of them to divide insects into four 

 orders. In the first order development is direct, and 

 there is no transformation. Here he placed the lice, 

 besides the centipedes, spiders, scorpions, earthworm 

 and slugs. In his second order Swammerdam placed 

 the insects which gradually acquire wings, and pass 

 through no resting- stage. Of these he quotes the 

 dragon-fly, the cricket, the cockroach and others. In 

 the third order come the insects whose wings develop 

 beneath the larval skin and which pass through a 



1 Biblia Natura, p. 84. 



