146 EXAMINATION OF 



the cavity of the teilicle, the air pafTed between 

 the veficles and the adjacent parts. M. Mery 

 fimply replied, that this proof was infufficient, 

 as thefe veficles were never feen feparate from 

 the teflicles. M. Duverney farther o!)ferved 

 the glandulous bodies upon the tefticles ; but 

 he never confidered them as parts effential tO' 

 generation, but as accidental excrefcences, like 

 gall-nuts on the oak. M. Littre, whofe pre- 

 judices in favour of eggs were ftill ftronger, 

 maintained not only that the veficles were eggs, 

 but even affured us, that he difcovered in one of 

 them a well formed foetus, of which he could 

 diftinguifh both the head and trunk ; and he has 

 even given their dimenfions. But, admitting 

 this wonder, which never appeared to any eyes 

 except his own, to be convinced of the doubt- 

 fulnefs of the fadt, we have only to perufe his 

 memoir *. From his own defcription, it appears 

 that the uterus was fchirrous, and the tefticle 

 very much corrupted ; that the veficle or egg^ 

 which contained the pretended foetus, was much 

 Jefs than common, &c. 



Nuck furniflies us with a celebrated experi- 

 ment in favour of eggs. He opened a bitch 

 three days after copulation ; he drew out one of 

 the boms of the uterus, and tied it in the middle, 

 fo as to prevent the fuperior part of the Fal- 

 lopian tube from having any communication 

 with the inferior. After this, he replaced the 



horn 



* Annce 1701, p. iii. 



