96 fish Cultural Association. 
hypothesis, but says that he has heard that eels are also born 
alive from eels. 
Rondelet (sixteenth century A. D.) asserts that eels are 
born not only from putrefied matter, but also from eggs pro- 
duced by the copulation of male and female eels. 
Conrad Gesner (sixteenth century) attributes the repro- 
duction of eels to putrefying matter, and also to copula- 
tion. 
Walpiglie (seventeenth century), a great naturalist and ex- 
pert microscopist, declares that the ovaries, not only of the 
eels, but also of similar fish,.such jjas».the , “crongo4 ane 
the “murena” (AZuraena helena), are fatty productions, and 
calls them “stz@ adipose.” 
Redi (towards the end of the ‘seventeenth century), who 
’ 
has dissected many eels and “murenas” (JZuraena_ helena), 
and also illustrated as such the ovaries of the last men- 
tioned fish, nevertheless does not recognize the ovaries of 
the .cel... Ele: opposes ».the, hypothesis; that, the eel ,canynenre- 
produced from putrefying matter; he proves, moreover, that 
what are called young eels are nothing but intestinal worms, 
and therefore eels are not viviparous animals, but are re- 
produced by means of eggs in the same manner as other 
fish. 
Leuwenhocek (towards the end of the seventeenth cen- 
tury), who has occupied himself much with microscopic ob- 
servations, and was the first who made known the zxzfusorza, 
having found in the urinary bladder of an eel very small 
parasitic worms, mistook them for young eels, and the blad- 
denjitself for the: uterus; 
George Elsner relates that a fish-vender showed him an 
eel whose uterus was full of young ones, which, to. quote 
r 
