GENERATION OF ANIMALS, IV. i. 



male and the other all the parts of the female, they 

 were to be put into the uterus as though it were into 

 an oven, the one which has a uterus into a hot oven, 

 and the one which has no uterus into a cold one, then 

 it follows that the one that has no uterus will turn 

 out a female and the one that has a uterus a male. 

 And this is impossible. So that we may allow that 

 in this respect Democritus's statement is the better 

 of the two, because he is trying to find out what is the 

 difference inherent in this process of formation of 

 male and female, and endeavouring to state it, though 

 whether he is right or not is another matter. Yet 

 indeed, if heat and cold were the cause of the differ- 

 ence of the actual parts," then those who hold the 

 other \-iew * ought to have stated this, because, one 

 might say, this is tantamount to making a statement 

 about the process of formation of male and female, 

 since it is in these parts that the evident difference 

 between the two lies. And also, if you start from 

 this principle,"^ you have your work cut out to prove 

 the cause of the process of formation of these parts, 

 and to show that it necessarily follows that when the 

 animal is cooled the part called the uterus is formed 

 in it, but that when it is heated it is not formed. 

 The same may be said about the parts which serve 

 for intercourse, since these too differ, as has already 

 been stated. 



Further, male and female twins are often formed 

 together in the same part of the uterus. This has 



and cold (see above, 1. 13), and that this had little or nothing 

 to do with the difference of the sexual organs. But it seems- 

 impossible that Empedocles could have meant anything else 

 than that heat and cold were the cause of the difference of 

 the sexes, including that of the distinctive organs. 

 ' i.e., of heat and cold. 



